Opinion: Jonathan Kraft not representing the Krafts well during labor battle

[JoeSixPat]

NFL media rights to hit $8 billion annually, experts say - NFL - Sporting News

I wouldn't doubt that's about right. Though isn't Moody's the bond rating entity that predicted an 8% return on pension funds over the previous decade?

 

[cmasspatsfan]

That won't happen before 2014 because of the DirecTV contact. You'll get your Red Zone, but unless DirecTV changes the contract with the NFL (again), there won't be individual games available on any phone service. And I know this from talking to DirecTV about my Sunday Ticket. Said they'd be able to make more money with A la Carte service than the combined. The person said that wouldn't be happening in the foreseeable future because of the NFL Contract.

Now, what I can see the NFL doing is entering into contracts with the different phone providers to have Sunday Ticket on your phone at an additional cost. Or a separate cost if you don't want it for your home. But it will be the full blown Sunday Ticket.

But how much new revenue would that produce. For me, I wouldn't pay the extra because I DVR the games at home and can just ignore the scores until I watch it.

The problem with the "projections" is that many of them are using 2005 and 2006 dollars as their starting point and ignoring the major economic downturn we've been through.

Your right, the article said 2014 would be when the revenue starts to skyrocket. Thats why the owners signed the last offer with an out clause, They kept the peace and kept the game going and growing figuring they could opt out and have plenty of time to get a new deal in place before 2014.
That why I think this ultimately gets done, the owners can afford to give some concessions to the players knowing the revenue will go up in a few years exponentially. Theres way too much at stake.

 

[DaBruinz]

Come on, there are so many unique facets to GB that they can't really be compared to other franchises in terms of valuation. For one thing the franchise effectively can't be moved or sold, unlike every other franchise. One Shareholder can't own more than 200k shares of the 4.7M in existence. They are in a tiny market, limiting non-NFL merchandising income. Income is handled differently than for for profits. I don't know for sure but I suspect Green Bay could be the least valuable franchise in the NFL in many ways and therefore isn't enough of an analogue to the rest of the franchises for the owners to claim that seeing GB's books is equivalent to seeing all of the books.

You seem to be confusing valuation of a franchise with what a franchise makes in profits. And the two are different entities.

We're talking about the nuts and bolts, year to year, revenue and expenses. And that is what the players wanted to see. They want to see how much nepotism is going on. How much owners are paying family members who do nothing for the franchise.

 

[DaBruinz]

NFL media rights to hit $8 billion annually, experts say - NFL - Sporting News

Nice of you to post that, Miguel. 8 billion by 2020. Not the 20 billion that Cmass was talking about.

This is a particularly nice quote:

Because otherwise, (the NFL) won’t reap enough to offset costs associated with building stadiums.”[/B]

In other words, if the situation isn't fixed, the owners won't get an adequate ROI for new Stadiums.. And there are 12 teams whose stadiums haven't been ungraded since before 1999.

Here is another key quote:

Bank said the NFL could indeed see its media fees surpass $8 billion annually in a decade, but he warned that it is misleading to say that the figure would double what’s being paid currently because of escalators that are built into the league’s media contracts.

Now. I see some problems with the projections. First, they are assuming that a full season will be played this year. I'd be willing to bet that if games are missed, the league won't make those projections. And the league will be damaged both with fans and with their sponsors.

 

[BrewCity Cheesehead]

Come on, there are so many unique facets to GB that they can't really be compared to other franchises in terms of valuation. For one thing the franchise effectively can't be moved or sold, unlike every other franchise. One Shareholder can't own more than 200k shares of the 4.7M in existence. They are in a tiny market, limiting non-NFL merchandising income. Income is handled differently than for for profits. I don't know for sure but I suspect Green Bay could be the least valuable franchise in the NFL in many ways and therefore isn't enough of an analogue to the rest of the franchises for the owners to claim that seeing GB's books is equivalent to seeing all of the books.

Great post... While GB is NFP, its more of a technicality than anything else and doesn't really affect how they generate and spend money when compared to other teams. Of course they don't have the single owner with the deep pockets, but they do have a few hundred million in outside investments that they have as assets, which kind of functions as having that owner with big financial resources. I was at the Packer's shareholder's meeting last year (I'm not a shareholder, but a good friend of mine is, and he brought me along), and GB did make a profit in 2009, but it was by far the smallest profit in years. Don't remember the numbers, but the message was that while revenue went up, costs went up even more.... a trend that would put them in the red the next year if it continued (though I'm sure a superbowl trophy might have boosted revenue for this last year). I wouldn't be surprised to see similar trends with the majority of teams.... Revenue staying about the same, while costs skyrocket.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Nice of you to post that, Miguel. 8 billion by 2020. Not the 20 billion that Cmass was talking about.

This is a particularly nice quote:


In other words, if the situation isn't fixed, the owners won't get an adequate ROI for new Stadiums.. And there are 12 teams whose stadiums haven't been ungraded since before 1999.

Here is another key quote:


Now. I see some problems with the projections. First, they are assuming that a full season will be played this year. I'd be willing to bet that if games are missed, the league won't make those projections. And the league will be damaged both with fans and with their sponsors.

I should have been more clear, I didnt mean 20 bill in tv and media contracts, I meant total revenues and that was by I think 2020. Regardless my point agrees with yours, they need to get a bigger slice of the pie now to offset costs that are are rising and to pay for stadiums, the days of tax funded stadiums with sweetheart deals are over.
Things have changed since the last CBA and the one before the that, the financial landscape is always changing and what CBA worked at one point in time doesnt mean its going to work forever.
The owners knew the last one wouldnt work for too long thats why they had the opt out clause, they went with it at the time to keep playing knowing they would opt out when the time came. It worked for a few years but its not going to work going forward. Thats why I dont blame the owners for opting out, everyone knew they would, it wasnt a big secret. I dont blame the players for trying to bargain a good deal for themselves either.
Now I wish everyone would just sit down at the table and work out a new deal that works for everyone, this legal ********* is just wasting time.

 

[townes]

This is the simpleton way of looking at things. Everyone with even a modicum of sense knew that the owners were going to opt out of the CBA at the earliest possible moment. And they knew it before the ink was dry on the 2006 CBA.

As for the players being satisfied, that is hardly true. Otherwise, they wouldn't have had a laundry list of items ready to go for the new CBA talks.

Now, I find it funny that you continue to beat this drum blaming the owners, yet you have failed to provide one SHRED of evidence of an offer from the players to the owners other than "status quo".

As for people providing sound and legitimate arguments as to why the owners opted out, people have done that. You've ignored it. Just like you've ignored the questions asked of you.

Actually i have consistently answered the questions from people who ask them in a reasonable way, but ignore those that start with " Hey d.ckhead......" I don't know of anyone else who has offered a proposal of what a fair deal would look like and don't see much opposition to the one i put out there, and that was an answer to a question from Ken about what a fair deal would look like. I work between 50 and 60 hours from Wed afternoon to Sunday morning, so i don't post much during that time, and have made that clear to those who asked questions of me, and i try to get back to those who aren't being ****s when i get the chance. In your case i answered despite the fact that you have been a real tool throughout this thread.

The players were willing to continue negotiating and play the season under the 2010 rules, which clearly favored ownership, and they were willing to talk as long as it took while keeping the game open, it was the owners who refused this offer and insisted on a lockout over talks, and that's as unreasonable as it gets. The owners opted out, the owners waited until time was up to make any offer, and the owners refused to keep the game going during negotiations, so Yes, I blame the owners, just as i will blame the players if they allow their reps to take down the structure of the game simply because they win the lawsuit. As I have said repeatedly both sides have an obligation that goes beyond their interests and both need to recognize this and act in accordance with that obligation, the players were willing to do so but the owners refused, and if the players allow D. Smith to go down the road the agents want instead of what is best for the game then I will blame them for that.