Some NFL Owners Resist New Deal

[Ring 6]

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.

What??? You said I interpret much more from your statements that what you said, then when I explain I was responding to the entire topic rather than the narrow part you addressed, now you complain about that too?



Since you really are not interested in hearing about what you are wrong about, I guess there is no point in having a discussion.

How about you change your tagline to

"If I post it, it is correct, please do not respond with any differing opinions, because I am not interested in hearing them"

God forbid that you once worked for a non profit company and I do not accept that this makes you the worlds imminent authority on anything having to do with non profit corporations.
Narrow is the perfect description of your level of objectivity.

 

[Ring 6]

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

Just curious since it appears that you have now appointed yourself the judge of who is right or wrong and the designated 'if you disagree with me you just choose not to accept the truth' arbiter, what teams financials would you like to post as a better example?

 

[DropKickFlutie]

Just curious since it appears that you have now appointed yourself the judge of who is right or wrong and the designated 'if you disagree with me you just choose not to accept the truth' arbiter, what teams financials would you like to post as a better example?

Just to chime in, this question is irrelevant since none of the NFL teams will disclose their financial information. The owners claim to be losing money but won't put up any facts to back up their arguments.

Not that any of this talk about which teams are making or losing money matters. The disagreements are more among the owners themselves rather than with the players. The biggest hurdle to ANY deal, are the small group of owners who want a radical proposal or nothing.

 

[Ring 6]

I agree that the owners will include corporate welfare in the new agreement.

Well, they will probably be forced to, but they do it grudginly.

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.

The biggest factor in the aves and have nots is market. You simply do not fix Jacksonville or Buffalo by selling the team. The new owners will have exactly the same issues. Unless you have stadium with PSL income and have the market where people will pay it, there isnt a heck of a lot ownership can do to enhance non shared revenue.

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.

Why is that a bad thing? Kraft decided to build his own stadium because he felt he could do it better than with public money. The Jets and Giants use public funds plus private funds. Mike Brown has a top 5 profit franchise because he has a great stadium deal.
Building it yourself isn't the difference in the profitability of a franchise, in fact, it could well be argued that the franchise is much better off if it gets subidized by public funds.

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.

To what end though? Marketing to increase ticket sales helps every teams revenues, much of the merchandise revenue is shared. If I'm not mistaken (and might be) merchandise sold at the venue, PSLs and licensing rights (stadium naming) are the only non shared sources of revenue. Marketing isnt creating 100,000,000 of difference in those.

 

[Ring 6]

Just to chime in, this question is irrelevant since none of the NFL teams will disclose their financial information.

[/quote]The owners claim to be losing money but won't put up any facts to back up their arguments. [/quote]

No it is the only question that is relevant because he lambasted the poster for using a "piss poor" example. An example cannot be "piss poor" unless there is another example which is better than "piss poor".

Please give me all of the examples available where owners have said they are losing money. Before you waste time, there are none because they have not said that.

They won't back up the argument with facts, because they havent made the argument.
They have said they want a bigger share. The players have said show us your financials so we can decide if you should want a bigger share and the owners have refused, because they will not allow the players to decide what is an acceptable profit level.

Not that any of this talk about which teams are making or losing money matters. The disagreements are more among the owners themselves rather than with the players. The biggest hurdle to ANY deal, are the small group of owners who want a radical proposal or nothing.

Probably true, and this is almost always the case in a group negotiation. There will be hard liners and softees.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

Just curious since it appears that you have now appointed yourself the judge of who is right or wrong and the designated 'if you disagree with me you just choose not to accept the truth' arbiter, what teams financials would you like to post as a better example?

I find it amusing that you take exception to a true statement like non-profit organizations operate differently than for-profit ones do, yet accept a silly statement saying there are no small market teams because you can watch games from anywhere garbage. Here is a great rule of thumb for you and your bbuddy. If you find that you are putting words into somebody else's mouth, there is a very good chance that you are wrong.

 

[Ring 6]

I find it amusing that you take exception to a true statement like non-profit organizations operate differently than for-profit ones do, yet accept a silly statement saying there are no small market teams because you can watch games from anywhere garbage. Here is a great rule of thumb for you and your bbuddy. If you find that you are putting words into somebody else's mouth, there is a very good chance that you are wrong.

I don't take exception to the statement, I take exception to your ignorant application of it, your poor understanding of it, and your arrogant and misguided self-annointed status as an expert on the topic because you worked at a non profit company.

I was not discussing the market size part of the argument.

I never put words in your mouth, but here you have put them in mine, by saying that I accepted a statement that I never even commented on.
Would this be where you admit you are wrong, because you did what you just said would mean you are wrong? Somehow I think you will slime your way around that one too.

 

[plk]

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.

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


The Wikipedia article says that for-profit organizations "can be privately owned." It does not say that they have to be, and it goes on to refer to "shareholders." The article is making a distinction between organizations that have owners and organizations that do not have owners.

Perhaps you would have found the quote less confusing if it had read "By contrast, not-for-profit organizations do not have owners" instead of "By contrast, not-for-profit organizations do not have private owners."

What the article is saying is clear with either wording.

I never said that there was a "conflict." I was just trying to figure out what term, if any, best describes the Packers status. I had already figured that out before you responded to my post with a post that did not make any sense.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

I don't take exception to the statement, I take exception to your ignorant application of it, your poor understanding of it, and your arrogant and misguided self-annointed status as an expert on the topic because you worked at a non profit company.

I was not discussing the market size part of the argument.

I never put words in your mouth, but here you have put them in mine, by saying that I accepted a statement that I never even commented on.
Would this be where you admit you are wrong, because you did what you just said would mean you are wrong? Somehow I think you will slime your way around that one too.

Perhaps I worded it poorly. You took exception to the true statement that non-profits operate differently than for-profit ones, yet you did not comment on a statement as silly as "there are no small market teams because you can watch games from anywhere", even though it was brought up repeatedly. Pretty damn funny.

When you are forced to put words into someone's mouth, and throw around terms like "arrogant" and "misguided self-annointed status", you are, in fact, wrong. If you had just a little more polish, I'd swear you were an Ivy leaguer.

 

[Ring 6]

Nonprofit organization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Wikipedia article says that for-profit organizations "can be privately owned." It does not say that they have to be, and it goes on to refer to "shareholders." The article is making a distinction between organizations that have owners and organizations that do not have owners.

Perhaps you would have found the quote less confusing if it had read "By contrast, not-for-profit organizations do not have owners" instead of "By contrast, not-for-profit organizations do not have private owners."

What the article is saying is clear with either wording.

I never said that there was a "conflict." I was just trying to figure out what term, if any, best describes the Packers status. I had already figured that out before you responded to my post with a post that did not make any sense.

Before you decide to insult me for trying to help you answer a question you asked, read the 3rd sentence. You seemed confused that 'having owners' was a distinction, so I pointed out to you that in the exact quote you listed, it distinguished that non profits do not have PRIVATE owners.

I found nothing confusing, other than your post that said (after quoting the above) that the Packers do not seem to fit either because they have owners but the owners cannot financially benefit.
Given the context of what you quote and your apparent belief that non profits couldn't have owners I could only conclude you misread what you copied in where it said non profits do not have PRIVATE owners.

I don't understand why you insist on having a plssing match over you posting something incorrect, and me trying to help you clear it up.

They are BOTH publicly owned and non-profit, so they don't 'not fit either description' they fit both.

 

[Ring 6]

Perhaps I worded it poorly. You took exception to the true statement that non-profits operate differently than for-profit ones, yet you did not comment on a statement as silly as "there are no small market teams because you can watch games from anywhere", even though it was brought up repeatedly. Pretty damn funny.

How do you find it funny that I chose to discuss one point in a thread where there are 30 different points flying around?

When you are forced to put words into someone's mouth, and throw around terms like "arrogant" and "misguided self-annointed status", you are, in fact, wrong. If you had just a little more polish, I'd swear you were an Ivy leaguer.

I did not put words in your mouth at all. Characterizing your stubborn attutude (I don't care to discuss it) with those terms, is in fact correct, that is waht you did.
You in fact acted as if since you worked at a non-profit no one elses point of view mattered. That is arrogant and it is also a misguided attempt to annoint yourself as the unquestioned expert on the topic.
Please feel free to fill me in on what position you held at this non profit, what type of business it was, how it equated to an NFL franchise, what experience you have with the operation of other non-profits and whatever else you feel is pertinent, if you wish to have me accept you as an unquestioned expert on the operations of a non profit NFL franchise.
At this point you have shown me nothing that puts you ahead of the doorman at the Trump Towers being an expert on the architecture, design and engineering of the building.

 

[Ring 6]

Perhaps I worded it poorly. You took exception to the true statement that non-profits operate differently than for-profit ones, yet you did not comment on a statement as silly as "there are no small market teams because you can watch games from anywhere", even though it was brought up repeatedly. Pretty damn funny.

When you are forced to put words into someone's mouth, and throw around terms like "arrogant" and "misguided self-annointed status", you are, in fact, wrong. If you had just a little more polish, I'd swear you were an Ivy leaguer.

By the way you still havent judged yourself wrong for putting words in my mouth, nor have you responded to what would be a better example of the financials of an NFL team than the 'piss poor' one you rejected.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

By the way you still havent judged yourself wrong for putting words in my mouth, nor have you responded to what would be a better example of the financials of an NFL team than the 'piss poor' one you rejected.

I clarified, and if you could see past your own emotions, you'd realize that I wasn't putting words in your mouth, just that I was amused that you could take such offense at a true statement, and not comment on an absurd one that was repeatedly brought to your attention. I chose my words poorly <-- (That's called admitting something).

I am still ammused, and almost satisfied with the level of doosh that you have exhibited. At no point have I claimed any kind of expertise, just a general knowledge, having had experience on both sides of the fence. I'm not the one claiming that non-profit organizations operate the same as for-profit ones.

 

[plk]

Before you decide to insult me for trying to help you answer a question you asked, read the 3rd sentence. You seemed confused that 'having owners' was a distinction, so I pointed out to you that in the exact quote you listed, it distinguished that non profits do not have PRIVATE owners.

I found nothing confusing, other than your post that said (after quoting the above) that the Packers do not seem to fit either because they have owners but the owners cannot financially benefit.
Given the context of what you quote and your apparent belief that non profits couldn't have owners I could only conclude you misread what you copied in where it said non profits do not have PRIVATE owners.

I don't understand why you insist on having a plssing match over you posting something incorrect, and me trying to help you clear it up.

You are not arguing with me. You are arguing with the way something was phrased in a Wikipedia article. You can log into Wikipedia and edit the article. I encourage you to do so.

When the article said "... not for profit organizations do not have private owners," it meant that they don't have individuals, as opposed to some sort of board, as owners. I would have thought that this would have been clear to anyone. But since it isn't, please edit the article.

They are BOTH publicly owned and non-profit, so they don't 'not fit either description' they fit both.

Or neither. It comes to the same thing.

 

[Ring 6]

You are not arguing with me. You are arguing with the way something was phrased in a Wikipedia article. You can log into Wikipedia and edit the article. I encourage you to do so.

You pasted it in and gave an opinion based on it.

When the article said "... not for profit organizations do not have private owners," it meant that they don't have individuals, as opposed to some sort of board, as owners.

What? Private companies are owned by individuals, partners or groups. Public companies are owned by shareholders. There isnt a gray area. "Some sort of board" is what the shareholders elect to have the authority to run the company day to day.

I would have thought that this would have been clear to anyone. But since it isn't, please edit the article.

Well, evidently it isn't clear to you, because you said "they aren't either because they have owners but they cannot financially benefit". The article is clear, your understanding of it is wrong.

Or neither. It comes to the same thing.

No it doesnt. Publicly held and non profit are not mutually exclusive. The Packers are in fact both. That is not an opinion, it is a fact.
I don't think you understand the meaning of the terms.
Your argument is equal to saying that something that is large and green cannot be both because everything green inst large and everything large isnt green so therefore the item that is both large and green is also neither large or green, it comes to the same thing.
Hope that helps clear it up for you.

 

[Ring 6]

I clarified, and if you could see past your own emotions, you'd realize that I wasn't putting words in your mouth, just that I was amused that you could take such offense at a true statement, and not comment on an absurd one that was repeatedly brought to your attention. I chose my words poorly <-- (That's called admitting something).

Once again, I took no 'offense' to any statement, I simply pointed out the incorrectness of your application of it. Once again feel free to show otherwise.
"I chose my words poorly" is a lame attempt at NOT admitting you were wrong. Nice try.

I am still ammused, and almost satisfied with the level of doosh that you have exhibited. At no point have I claimed any kind of expertise, just a general knowledge, having had experience on both sides of the fence.

No. You said you are not interested in hearing it, because you have seen it from both sides of the fence.
I have asked you to expand on that to show your level of knowledge and you simply ignored that.

I'm not the one claiming that non-profit organizations operate the same as for-profit ones.

Strawman, consistent with your weak overall argument.
I'll ask again, what examples can you offer that are better than the 'piss poor' Packers?

Also, if you would like we can have the "Packers are a small market and that makes their financials irrelevant" argument if you wish but you will end up losing that one too and turn again to insults and attitude, so maybe its best we dont

 

[plk]

What? Private companies are owned by individuals, partners or groups. Public companies are owned by shareholders. There isnt a gray area. "Some sort of board" is what the shareholders elect to have the authority to run the company day to day.

Please read the quote again. It says "... not for profit organizations do not have private owners." It is talking about "not for profit organizations." To make it clearer, since that seems to be necessary, it is talking about non-profit organizations. You respond by talking about public companies and private companies; that has nothing to do with the quote. Nonprofit organizations are governed by "some sort of board," but the board is not elected by the owners because, except perhaps in this rare case, there aren't any owners.

Well, evidently it isn't clear to you, because you said "they aren't either because they have owners but they cannot financially benefit". The article is clear, your understanding of it is wrong.

The article says, "Ownership is the quantitative difference between for- and not-for-profit organizations." The article believes that you can distinguish between for-profit and not-for-profit organizations based on ownership. It goes on to distinguish between for-profit and nonprofit organizations based on their ability to distribute profits. The Packers have owners, but they cannot distribute profits. They don't fit into either category.

No it doesnt. Publicly held and non profit are not mutually exclusive. The Packers are in fact both. That is not an opinion, it is a fact.

Companies that are owned either publicly or privately and nonprofit organizations are usually regarded as mutually exclusive. There appears to be a hybrid case here. Can you think of any other examples?

I don't think you understand the meaning of the terms.
Your argument is equal to saying that something that is large and green cannot be both because everything green inst large and everything large isnt green so therefore the item that is both large and green is also neither large or green, it comes to the same thing.

That is, of course, complete nonsense.

Hope that helps clear it up for you.

Nothing that you have said has cleared up anything. Actually, nothing needed to be cleared up before you jumped in.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

Once again, I took no 'offense' to any statement, I simply pointed out the incorrectness of your application of it. Once again feel free to show otherwise.
"I chose my words poorly" is a lame attempt at NOT admitting you were wrong. Nice try.


No. You said you are not interested in hearing it, because you have seen it from both sides of the fence.
I have asked you to expand on that to show your level of knowledge and you simply ignored that.


Strawman, consistent with your weak overall argument.
I'll ask again, what examples can you offer that are better than the 'piss poor' Packers?

Also, if you would like we can have the "Packers are a small market and that makes their financials irrelevant" argument if you wish but you will end up losing that one too and turn again to insults and attitude, so maybe its best we dont

I have not expanded on my knowledge of non-profits for two reasons. First, the statements were obvious ones to anyone who deals with non-profits on a regular basis. Second, more importantly, I wanted you to continue with your rhetoric to expose you for what you really are. As usual, you resort to extreme hyperbole, insult, putting words in others' mouths and lashing out to try to prove yourself to be right, regardless of how little you really know about a subject.

As I have said, I am not an expert in non-profit organizations. Stating that I work for a non-profit was simply to prove wrong the other db's lame accusation that I know absolutely nothing about non-profits. Because non-profits vary so widely in their source of income (grants, donations, revenue) and purpose, working for a single non-profit for two years, unless you are in legal or financials (which I am not), certainly is not a qualifier to comment on how most non-profits generally work. That said, for more than 13 years I was a vendor/consultant working in pre-sales, post-sales an support roles for hundreds of customers, many dozens of which were non-profit organizations. Their purchasing practices when purchasing technology and services for a new solution (not replacing an existing solution) differ vastly from most for-profit organizations. They always include multiple vendors for bids, the financial people are always the ones who sign the SOWs and the process is almost always more drawn out, and including many more internal employees than just about any for-profit oragnization (with a few exceptions i.e. companies that work for the DOD). As different as the purchasing process is, it pales in comparison to how non-profits deal with releasing capital investments, like old equiptment. They are sticklers about the vendor picking up old equiptment from the premisis, and are very thorough on the documenting exactly where that equiptment ends up. Sure, I am no expert on non-profit organizations, but after more than 13 years of working with them and their for-profit counterparts, I can say with a very high level of confidence that they do, in fact, operate differently than for-profit organizations.

Twenty minutes of google research doesn't make anyone an expert on any subject. You don't always have to be the "smartest guy in the room". Not everything is a competition, and it is ok to to be wrong sometimes. Unfortunately, I hold little hope that your have learned any humility from this little exercise. Much more likely, you will lash out, blaming others for doing what is you own MO. If you do lash out, please keep it confined to the forums because if there are still any loved ones living with you, they've been through enough. You need help.

 

[Ring 6]

Please read the quote again. It says "... not for profit organizations do not have private owners." It is talking about "not for profit organizations." To make it clearer, since that seems to be necessary, it is talking about non-profit organizations. You respond by talking about public companies and private companies; that has nothing to do with the quote. Nonprofit organizations are governed by "some sort of board," but the board is not elected by the owners because, except perhaps in this rare case, there aren't any owners.

There have to be owners. Private or public, there have to be owners.

The article says, "Ownership is the quantitative difference between for- and not-for-profit organizations." The article believes that you can distinguish between for-profit and not-for-profit organizations based on ownership. It goes on to distinguish between for-profit and nonprofit organizations based on their ability to distribute profits. The Packers have owners, but they cannot distribute profits. They don't fit into either category.

They do not have PRIVATE owners. Every business has owners. You need to recognize that word in the text you quoted.
It isnt saying ownership vs no ownership is the difference it is saying private vs public. There is no such thing as no ownership

Companies that are owned either publicly or privately and nonprofit organizations are usually regarded as mutually exclusive. There appears to be a hybrid case here. Can you think of any other examples?

That is totally wrong. They are not mutually exclusive.
Every company is public or private. The article is saying that in order to qualify for non profit status, the company must be owned by shareholders, not a private owner.
Again everything is either green or not green. Some things are small and some are large. Being green does not exclude something from being large.

That is, of course, complete nonsense.

No it is exactly what you are saying.

Nothing that you have said has cleared up anything. Actually, nothing needed to be cleared up before you jumped in.

Well, a lot needs to be cleared up. Every company has owners. They are either public or private. For profit companies can be either. Non profit companies MUST be organized as public.
The Packers are both a public company and a non profit company. That is as plain a fact as today is Sunday.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Here's an article by Jason Cole of Yahoo on who may be resisting the new deal and why and what the liklihood is they will prevail and what the consequences could be if they do. Just for those of you tired of the typical hijacker non profit debate currently raging in this thread...

Chicago meetings pivotal for Goodell - NFL - Yahoo! Sports