Some NFL Owners Resist New Deal

[Shelterdog]

Oil Industry Profit Margin Ranks #114 out 215

This link does not directly answer your question as it does not say anything about "health," but it does give some perspective on profit margins in different industries.

Football's a weird business though. First the owners might get a lot of monetary compensation they might not get in other industries (private planes, kids working for the team-or in the case of the Browns the whole freaking family "working" for the team). Second there are psychic returns-whether they admit it or not many owners are willing to accept lower economic returns from their sports business because owning a team is just so cool

 

[plk]

Second there are psychic returns-whether they admit it or not many owners are willing to accept lower economic returns from their sports business because owning a team is just so cool

My own belief is that it is a shame that sports franchises are ever run primarily for profit. Owners who see a sports franchise as an investment in which they want to maximize profit are very likely to be bad owners. See the Jacobs until very recently.

Sports franchises make their money off the loyalty, frequently fanatical, of their fans. There are lots of places that people can invest their money if they want to maximize profit without doing it at the expense of the people whose loyalty makes the business possible.

In a better world, all sports franchises would be owned by their communities.

 

[townes]

Oil Industry Profit Margin Ranks #114 out 215

This link does not directly answer your question as it does not say anything about "health," but it does give some perspective on profit margins in different industries.

The oil industry is given the rights to resources they have no right to for free and are then handed billions and billions in taxpayer subsidies only to turn around and gouge the same people they have taken the resources and subsidies from. Google does no such thing.

 

[BlueThunder]

When is the last time a company that saw a 2% decline in sales giving out 5% raises to it's employees?

BTW...One million in sales is nothing nowadays......

 

[plk]

The oil industry is given the rights to resources they have no right to for free and are then handed billions and billions in taxpayer subsidies only to turn around and gouge the same people they have taken the resources and subsidies from. Google does no such thing.

The link lists the Net Profit Margins for 114 industries. What I found interesting is where a 10% profit margin for the Packers compares to the averages for other companies in other industries.

The title of the link has nothing to do with my point, and it is misleading from that point of view.

 

[townes]

The link lists the Net Profit Margins for 114 industries. What I found interesting is where a 10% profit margin for the Packers compares to the averages for other companies in other industries.

The title of the link has nothing to do with my point, and it is misleading from that point of view.

My bad plk, I think i was actually responding to a different post and quoted you while responding to their Google comment.

 

[plk]

My bad plk, I think i was actually responding to a different post and quoted you while responding to their Google comment.

No problem. I thought that was what was probably happening.

 

[townes]

My own belief is that it is a shame that sports franchises are ever run primarily for profit. Owners who see a sports franchise as an investment in which they want to maximize profit are very likely to be bad owners. See the Jacobs until very recently.

Sports franchises make their money off the loyalty, frequently fanatical, of their fans. There are lots of places that people can invest their money if they want to maximize profit without doing it at the expense of the people whose loyalty makes the business possible.

In a better world, all sports franchises would be owned by their communities.

lmao-commie.


Communities have no right to own their own teams, that privilege is the reserved with prejudice for the children and grandchildren of the uber-wealthy. Seriously, who is better suited to own a cash cow than someone who has grown up bathing in their private waterfall and riding on their own private jet?

 

[Ring 6]

When is the last time a company that saw a 2% decline in sales giving out 5% raises to it's employees?

BTW...One million in sales is nothing nowadays......

The 1 million is sales was just for example.
The raises would have been given based upon the 'healthy 10% earnings', not the revenue decline that followed it.

 

[Sfpat]

The oil industry is given the rights to resources they have no right to for free and are then handed billions and billions in taxpayer subsidies only to turn around and gouge the same people they have taken the resources and subsidies from. Google does no such thing.

Let's just get rid of those evil oil companies. We don't need them.

 

[Ring 6]

lmao-commie.


Communities have no right to own their own teams, that privilege is the reserved with prejudice for the children and grandchildren of the uber-wealthy. Seriously, who is better suited to own a cash cow than someone who has grown up bathing in their private waterfall and riding on their own private jet?

The problem with this idea is that taxpayers would have to foot the bill for every cost of the franchise. Could you imagine what the labor dispute would look like if it was players vs government?
The reason there are owners is that they make an investment in creating a franchise (then it is sold from owner to owner). I have not seen any community go to the NFL and offer to foot the bill with taxpayer money to open an expansion franchise.
What you are asking for can't happen because the only entities willing to invest so heavily are the wealthy people you are demeaning in your post. Without them(and their predecessors), there wouldn't be an NFL.
The communities that you are speaking so fondly of are consistenlty voting down funding of HIGH SCHOOL sports, how would you expect them to agree to tax dollars going to signing bonuses for 1st round draft choices?

 

[upstater1]

The problem with this idea is that taxpayers would have to foot the bill for every cost of the franchise. Could you imagine what the labor dispute would look like if it was players vs government?
The reason there are owners is that they make an investment in creating a franchise (then it is sold from owner to owner). I have not seen any community go to the NFL and offer to foot the bill with taxpayer money to open an expansion franchise.
What you are asking for can't happen because the only entities willing to invest so heavily are the wealthy people you are demeaning in your post. Without them(and their predecessors), there wouldn't be an NFL.
The communities that you are speaking so fondly of are consistenlty voting down funding of HIGH SCHOOL sports, how would you expect them to agree to tax dollars going to signing bonuses for 1st round draft choices?

And yet they fund stadiums. Minnesota funded one just as a bridge was collapsing. Buffalo even funds Ralph Wilson with $20 million each and every year.

Beyond that, they are subsidized with the tax code. You and I don't get to write off our dinners and parties on our taxes, while the funding for the NFL comes from a ridiculous business entertainment writeoff that should be totally abolished. Even if the revenues are not returned to the people, then at the very least the corporate tax rate should be lowered by the 1% those writeoffs generate.

 

[Ring 6]

And yet they fund stadiums. Minnesota funded one just as a bridge was collapsing. Buffalo even funds Ralph Wilson with $20 million each and every year.

They do, but that is far different than funding a franchise.

 

[plk]

I have not seen any community go to the NFL and offer to foot the bill with taxpayer money to open an expansion franchise.

Of course not, because as the rules now exist, communities are not allowed to own a franchise. If the rules were changed so that a community could own a franchise, I believe a number of communities would pursue ownership.

 

[Ring 6]

And yet they fund stadiums. Minnesota funded one just as a bridge was collapsing. Buffalo even funds Ralph Wilson with $20 million each and every year.

Beyond that, they are subsidized with the tax code. You and I don't get to write off our dinners and parties on our taxes, while the funding for the NFL comes from a ridiculous business entertainment writeoff that should be totally abolished. Even if the revenues are not returned to the people, then at the very least the corporate tax rate should be lowered by the 1% those writeoffs generate.

That not an NFL or an owner issue, that is an IRS issue. The IRS has determined that all businesses can write of entertainment expense.
I think the corporate income tax structure is a little too complex to discuss on a football message board, but clearly the intent is that business entertainment is an expense of doing business and part of the 'investment' a company makes in generating revenue. You could argue that TV ads and other forms of marketing shouldn't be deductible in the same vein.

 

[Ring 6]

Of course not, because as the rules now exist, communities are not allowed to own a franchise. If the rules were changed so that a community could own a franchise, I believe a number of communities would pursue ownership.

Thee is really no way to know that, but when I see school budgets consistently defeated, I don't know how a government run franchise could ever work.
I can't imagine there are any cities out there that would pass a vote of spending tax dollars to buy a football team. Many high school football programs are under funded, and many sports have been eliminated.
I live in an upper middle class area, and my son is playing 8th grade football next year. In this school district in order to afford equipment, every player must sell 3 $100 raffle tickets to raise funds for the program.
In essence this district passed a budget that forced each player to have to pay $300 to play HS football. I find it impossible to believe this communuity would vote for spending 100 billion of tax payer moeny to buy an NFL franchsie, then approve budgets to give 40mill signing bonusses to the #1 pick. I find it even less likely that a less affluent community would.

 

[plk]

Thee is really no way to know that, but when I see school budgets consistently defeated, I don't know how a government run franchise could ever work.
I can't imagine there are any cities out there that would pass a vote of spending tax dollars to buy a football team. Many high school football programs are under funded, and many sports have been eliminated.
I live in an upper middle class area, and my son is playing 8th grade football next year. In this school district in order to afford equipment, every player must sell 3 $100 raffle tickets to raise funds for the program.
In essence this district passed a budget that forced each player to have to pay $300 to play HS football. I find it impossible to believe this communuity would vote for spending 100 billion of tax payer moeny to buy an NFL franchsie, then approve budgets to give 40mill signing bonusses to the #1 pick. I find it even less likely that a less affluent community would.

In the one real life example that we have, the Green Bay Packers are owned by individuals in the Green Bay community, i.e. shareholders.

Direct ownership by the formal government of a community is an intriguing idea. I wonder if there are any examples anywhere.

I sometimes wonder what might have happened when Yawkey was writing his will if MLB baseball allowed ownership either as a widely held company on the Packer model, or ownership by a group of cities. He might well have made it financially possible for one of the two options to work.

Sports franchises are fundamentally moneymakers if they are efficiently run, run for the benefit of the fans, and they have the support of their communities. Public ownership would not work everywhere, but I don't believe the Packers are a unique situation.

Times are difficult right now, and money is tight, but I'm not talking about just right now. Successful sports franchises have gotten very expensive. Many of the best opportunities for public ownership were in the past. Perhaps there are still opportunities in franchises that are not doing well. And times will get better.

The possibility of ownership by a community, one way or the other, is most likely to come up when a local sports franchise that is important to the community comes up for sale, and the community can see that it can be run to be financially successful.

As it is, a community does not even have the possibility of ownership, and that, I think, is wrong.

 

[townes]

In the one real life example that we have, the Green Bay Packers are owned by individuals in the Green Bay community, i.e. shareholders.

Direct ownership by the formal government of a community is an intriguing idea. I wonder if there are any examples anywhere.

I sometimes wonder what might have happened when Yawkey was writing his will if MLB baseball allowed ownership either as a widely held company on the Packer model, or ownership by a group of cities. He might well have made it financially possible for one of the two options to work.

Sports franchises are fundamentally moneymakers if they are efficiently run, run for the benefit of the fans, and they have the support of their communities. Public ownership would not work everywhere, but I don't believe the Packers are a unique situation.

Times are difficult right now, and money is tight, but I'm not talking about just right now. Successful sports franchises have gotten very expensive. Many of the best opportunities for public ownership were in the past. Perhaps there are still opportunities in franchises that are not doing well. And times will get better.

The possibility of ownership by a community, one way or the other, is most likely to come up when a local sports franchise that is important to the community comes up for sale, and the community can see that it can be run to be financially successful.

As it is, a community does not even have the possibility of ownership, and that, I think, is wrong.

The Packers are the model I was thinking of and i don't see any problem at all in the New England community coming up with enough people to buy shares to own the franchise, the bigger problem would be running it properly once it was sold to the community. The Packers have demonstrated that can be done properly and successfully but it would always come down to putting the right people in charge of the franchise. In the casse of the Patriots we already have good and successful ownership and I wouldn't favor trading that for community ownership even though I would love to own shares in them. This doesn't mean, however, that every franchise is successfully run or that communities should be denied the opportunity to buy their franchises, especially if ownership is looking to move them, in which case i think the community should have the first option on buying them, and if they cannot meet the price through a stock option buyout then the owners can sell or move them to another buyer or community.


I don't favor government ownership of teams and don't believe it would work well at all, but on the other hand allowing Mike brown's grandkids to someday run the Bengals is almost criminal,and the idea that only the uber wealthy should be allowed to own these teams is disgusting imo.

 

[Frick]

Ralph Wilson doesn't want to move his team to the West Coast because if they go any further they could fall off the edge.

 

[townes]

The problem with this idea is that taxpayers would have to foot the bill for every cost of the franchise. Could you imagine what the labor dispute would look like if it was players vs government?
The reason there are owners is that they make an investment in creating a franchise (then it is sold from owner to owner). I have not seen any community go to the NFL and offer to foot the bill with taxpayer money to open an expansion franchise.
What you are asking for can't happen because the only entities willing to invest so heavily are the wealthy people you are demeaning in your post. Without them(and their predecessors), there wouldn't be an NFL.
The communities that you are speaking so fondly of are consistenlty voting down funding of HIGH SCHOOL sports, how would you expect them to agree to tax dollars going to signing bonuses for 1st round draft choices?

I'm not talking about governments buying franchises, only communities through public offerings. Are you seriously defending the rule the owners put in place denying communities the right to buy their franchises?