AP Source: NFL’s profitability data offer rejected

[Scott Dierking]

That's great! The value went down ONCE in forever and they have to restructure everything. They opted out of the CBA two years BEFORE they ever lost value. Is there one single owner that paid more for his team than it is currently worth? I think not. I'm not sure how they valued the teams, but if I were bidding on buying one this bullsh*t labor strife is a major reason why I would bid less. I'm sure it's tougher to sell season tickets with a lockout looming the next season.

Past performance is no indication of future earnings

[SMC]

This is your statement-"AND, that insurance premium is an expense that REDUCES the pool that the players get their salary cap from". WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. You are way off base

You have the terms profits and revenues confused. YIKES

Not everything is paid by football generated revenues. Some owners HAVE NOT had public stadium funding. And yes, buying a team is a pretty big expense. And a majority of franchises have been devalued recently. Economy hits them too.

You were WRONG on how monies get paid out.

No, you're wrong.

I don't have the term revenues and profits confused. Give me a break. REVENUES are what is generated and PROFITS is what is left over for the owners to pocket FROM REVENUE after expenses are paid.

Again, EVERYTHING is paid by football generated revenues. The Giants and Jets privately financed the NMS. How are they paying back those loans? THROUGH FOOTBALL REVENUES.

PSLs go directly to the owners. The owners are supposed to use that to pay down the debt.

Owners aren't coming out of pocket to cover expenses on their football teams. They're using monies generated by the players to pay for expenses. Why do you think there is a split of the $9 million???

$1 billion goes directly to the owners in the first instance

$3.2 billion then goes directly to the owners after the first $1 billion is taken off.

The remaining $4.72 billion goes to pay player salaries.

[SMC]

Therein lies the crux of the matter. But lets be careful of the term "fork over". My belief is that players salaries will not decline. Am I wrong there?

LOL. You're dead wrong like usual on this issue.

As mentioned, if the players are getting $3.72 billion after getting $4.72 billion under the previous CBA then, yeah, salaries will decline because of the drastic drop in the salary cap.

[Scott Dierking]

LOL. You're dead wrong like usual on this issue.

As mentioned, if the players are getting $3.72 billion after getting $4.72 billion under the previous CBA then, yeah, salaries will decline because of the drastic drop in the salary cap.

Why are you such an a$$?

I asked for clarification, and no one has given a link showing that players salaries will actually decline.

How about we discuss you not knowing the difference between revenue and profits, and where the players actually draw salary from?

That is where you were dead wrong-the most basic principle.

[SMC]

Why are you such an a$$?

I asked for clarification, and no one has given a link showing that players salaries will actually decline.

How about we discuss you not knowing the difference between revenue and profits, and where the players actually draw salary from?

That is where you were dead wrong-the most basic principle.

I'm being an a$$ because you're being epically dense.

I DO KNOW the difference between revenue and profits and where the players actually draw salary from. You claiming I don't is disingenuous and flat out nonsense.

You're wrong on every level. That, admittedly, is frustrating.

The PLAYERS generate revenue. The TV deals, merchandising, apparel, luxury suites, ticket sales, etc. are all related to the players playing. They are the reason the NFL makes revenue. However, not all that revenue is put in the pool to be divided. For instance, luxury suites and PSLs aren't put into the pool. For the money in the pool, owners get $4.2 billion and from that amount the owners pay non-player expenses. Any money left over from that $4.2 billion is profit.

I'm 100% right on my description. Tell me how I'm wrong???

[#27TheDominator]

Why are you such an a$$?

I asked for clarification, and no one has given a link showing that players salaries will actually decline.

How about we discuss you not knowing the difference between revenue and profits, and where the players actually draw salary from?

That is where you were dead wrong-the most basic principle.

The ONLY reason it is based on revenue and not profit is that that owners are scared sh*tless of opening the books to prove profit.

[Scott Dierking]

I'm being an a$$ because you're being epically dense.

I DO KNOW the difference between revenue and profits and where the players actually draw salary from. You claiming I don't is disingenuous and flat out nonsense.

You're wrong on every level. That, admittedly, is frustrating.

The PLAYERS generate revenue. The TV deals, merchandising, apparel, luxury suites, ticket sales, etc. are all related to the players playing. They are the reason the NFL makes revenue. However, not all that revenue is put in the pool to be divided. For instance, luxury suites and PSLs aren't put into the pool. For the money in the pool, owners get $4.2 billion and from that amount the owners pay non-player expenses. Any money left over from that $4.2 billion is profit.

I'm 100% right on my description. Tell me how I'm wrong???

In our discussion about a hypothetical Insurance claim, you said that that claim would BE DEDUCTED FROM THE POOL THE PLAYERS DRAW SALARY FROM, THUS REDUCING THEIR SHARE. That is Patently WRONG.

They share revenues BEFORE any expenses are taken out. HUGE DIFFERENCE

[SMC]

BTW, SD, I don't mean to sound so harsh. For that, I appologize.

Again, yes, I know the difference between revenue and profits and have posted an explanation about which is 100% spot on.

The owners' profits come from the revenues generated by the players. It is what is left over after the owners pay expenses from their cut of the revenues.

The owners wouldn't have profits without the players generating revenue.

Thus, when I speak of insurance premiums, that is an expense paid out of the owners' revenue share.

[Scott Dierking]

BTW, SD, I don't mean to sound so harsh. For that, I appologize.

Again, yes, I know the difference between revenue and profits and have posted an explanation about which is 100% spot on.

The owners' profits come from the revenues generated by the players. It is what is left over after the owners pay expenses from their cut of the revenues.

The owners wouldn't have profits without the players generating revenue.

Thus, when I speak of insurance premiums, that is an expense paid out of the owners' revenue share.

We are all good.

I am just trying to take on side here-Not saying it is the right side. There are perspectives (valid ones) on both sides.

I am pretty obtuse, too

[SMC]

In our discussion about a hypothetical Insurance claim, you said that that claim would BE DEDUCTED FROM THE POOL THE PLAYERS DRAW SALARY FROM, THUS REDUCING THEIR SHARE. That is Patently WRONG.

They share revenues BEFORE any expenses are taken out. HUGE DIFFERENCE

Insurance premiums are paid from the owner's share of the revenue WHICH IS GENERATED FROM BY THE PLAYERS.

I mispoke earlier. Thanks for the clarification. And my bad for taking to task on it.

[Scott Dierking]

Insurance premiums are paid from the owner's share of the revenue WHICH IS GENERATED FROM BY THE PLAYERS.

I mispoke earlier. Thanks for the clarification.

All Good.

Let's hope this works out to everyone's benefit, mostly ours, and in some small way, I hope that the Jets get a benefit too.

The NFL is struggling between the haves and have nots in ownership, also-as hard as that is to believe.

They have been the case study of "sharing equall" amongst themselves, but that model does not seem to fit any more.

Thanks, SMC

[bitonti]

NFL team values fell 2% last season to an average of $1.02 billion, the first decline since Forbes began tracking the league's finances in 1998, with 21 of the league's 32 teams seeing their worths drop. Team values slipped because the bad economy has reduced demand and cut nonbroadcasting revenue for many teams. More

If the owners actually opened their books there would be alot of unpleasantries in there.

Many owners have used team funds for private expenses (as is their right in a private ownership situation) but it would be a PR disaster for the bargaining table.

The owners can't demand players cut of revenue with a straight face, when the books say they are using team funds to buy summer homes in the South of France, gulfstream jets and Premiership soccer teams.

[#27TheDominator]

Screw this friendly bullsh*t! You suck Dierking!

[SMC]

Screw the NFL. I hope it ceases to exist.

Fitting that the POS Goodell would stear his world class luxury liner straight into an iceberg.

[Scott Dierking]

Screw this friendly bullsh*t! You suck Dierking!

Tell us something we don't know

[#27TheDominator]

Tell us something we don't know

Kevin Long, FTW!

[SMC]

This all was a money grab by the owners.

They want another $1 billion off the top so they set up a lockout plan using TV as a survival fund. Once they locked out the players they thought the union would cave because players wouldn't be getting paychecks.

Judge Dotty blew up the owners' plans. Without the lockout insurance, many owners face loan default BEFORE the players receive a paycheck. So now the financial strain is on the owners.

[PatriotReign37]

They are contracted employees. Nothing more.

They are eligible to take their services from one team to another. They have no obligation.

That is not a partner.

Its a partnership. But, not in the legal sense.

“The way two business partners should interact with each is one based on trust, and trust that is verified,” Smith said. “For the last 14 days, the N.F.L. has said ‘trust us,’ but when it came time to verify, they told us it was none of our business.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/12/sports/football/12nfl.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=football

[kelticwizard]

The ONLY reason it is based on revenue and not profit is that that owners are scared sh*tless of opening the books to prove profit.

You got that right.

Years ago when the baseball players went on strike, the owners were saying much the same thing as the NFL owners are saying now-small franchises can't compete, etc. Servile sportswriters believed this pap and put it in their columns.

There was some kind of trial or hearing. The owners were forced to open their books. Surprise!-not one franchise was losing money, in fact they were all doing quite nicely, thank you. The Commissioner of Baseball at the time, who had been talking all about teams losing money, etc, had to take the stand after the books were opened and say, "Well, I never said that the clubs couldn't afford to pay", or some such doubletalk.

Anybody who takes the owners' word about the profitability of their teams is out of their mind.

[Sperm Edwards]

Its a partnership. But, not in the legal sense.

“The way two business partners should interact with each is one based on trust, and trust that is verified,” Smith said. “For the last 14 days, the N.F.L. has said ‘trust us,’ but when it came time to verify, they told us it was none of our business.”

http://www.nytimes.c...=1&ref=football

How much did the Jets players write to the Hess family so they could be partners with Woody Johnson? Was it $300M? I forget.

PSL holders are partners more than the players are. Which is to say they aren't.

I really don't give a crap which mega-rich people get the longer end of the stick here, the mega-millionaires or the billionaires. I just want to watch football. Bunch of friggin' babies the whole lot of them.

[PatriotReign37]

How much did the Jets players write to the Hess family so they could be partners with Woody Johnson? Was it $300M? I forget.

PSL holders are partners more than the players are. Which is to say they aren't.

I really don't give a crap which mega-rich people get the longer end of the stick here, the mega-millionaires or the billionaires. I just want to watch football. Bunch of friggin' babies the whole lot of them.

Nobody is writing checks to anybody.

The league does well, and the players and owners share a larger pool of money - player salaries rise. The league does poorly, and the players and owners share a smaller pool of money - player salaries are stagnant or decrease. The players are taking risk that the owners will do their part investing in team infrastructure and the owners take risk that the players will do whatever necessary to be the best at their positions.

[Matt39]

You got that right.

Years ago when the baseball players went on strike, the owners were saying much the same thing as the NFL owners are saying now-small franchises can't compete, etc. Servile sportswriters believed this pap and put it in their columns.

There was some kind of trial or hearing. The owners were forced to open their books. Surprise!-not one franchise was losing money, in fact they were all doing quite nicely, thank you. The Commissioner of Baseball at the time, who had been talking all about teams losing money, etc, had to take the stand after the books were opened and say, "Well, I never said that the clubs couldn't afford to pay", or some such doubletalk.

Anybody who takes the owners' word about the profitability of their teams is out of their mind.

Even if they were losing money, then stop shelling out these huge contracts. Its a joke really. Owning a football team is just as voluntary as playing for one. The owners are 1000000% the ones to blame for this debacle.

[Sperm Edwards]

Nobody is writing checks to anybody.

The league does well, and the players and owners share a larger pool of money - player salaries rise. The league does poorly, and the players and owners share a smaller pool of money - player salaries are stagnant or decrease. The players are taking risk that the owners will do their part investing in team infrastructure and the owners take risk that the players will do whatever necessary to be the best at their positions.

My point is they are not partners. Owners wrote checks to buy their teams. The players did not. Every business owner is not business partners with his employees.

That being said, I don't give a rat's a$$ about any of the owners. If they're too stubborn to make good business decisions regarding their prized investments, they deserve to have the players form a sister league. LIkewise these players today should realize that anything super-profitable along those lines will be built for others rather than for themselves, kind of like the NFL players from decades ago.

[Scott Dierking]

My point is they are not partners. Owners wrote checks to buy their teams. The players did not. Every business owner is not business partners with his employees.

That being said, I don't give a rat's a$$ about any of the owners. If they're too stubborn to make good business decisions regarding their prized investments, they deserve to have the players form a sister league. LIkewise these players today should realize that anything super-profitable along those lines will be built for others rather than for themselves, kind of like the NFL players from decades ago.

The notion that they are partners comes from the same people that believe the Easter Bunny will take care of them.

They are business associates, that is all.

[Scott Dierking]

Even if they were losing money, then stop shelling out these huge contracts. Its a joke really. Owning a football team is just as voluntary as playing for one. The owners are 1000000% the ones to blame for this debacle.

You have a chasm in ownership. Some teams are not making A LOT of money. Those are the clubs they are worried about

[JohnnyLV]

Even if they were losing money, then stop shelling out these huge contracts. Its a joke really. Owning a football team is just as voluntary as playing for one. The owners are 1000000% the ones to blame for this debacle.

The problem is that for NFL owners it is not that simple. They cannot agreee to pay less to players without being accused of collusion.

[PatriotReign37]

My point is they are not partners. Owners wrote checks to buy their teams. The players did not. Every business owner is not business partners with his employees.

That being said, I don't give a rat's a$$ about any of the owners. If they're too stubborn to make good business decisions regarding their prized investments, they deserve to have the players form a sister league. LIkewise these players today should realize that anything super-profitable along those lines will be built for others rather than for themselves, kind of like the NFL players from decades ago.

Every business owner does not share gross revenue. Every business owners employees do not have a say on how the money is split.

[PatriotReign37]

The notion that they are partners comes from the same people that believe the Easter Bunny will take care of them.

They are business associates, that is all.

Then Goodell and the NFLPA President believe in the Easter bunny.

[Scott Dierking]

Then Goodell and the NFLPA President believe in the Easter bunny.

That is just public rhetoric. Don't be so naive.

[Sperm Edwards]

Every business owner does not share gross revenue. Every business owners employees do not have a say on how the money is split.

Are you joking? There is also shared revenue among the teams. That doesn't mean Ralph Wilson owns part of the Patriots or has any say in whether or not he re-signs Tom Brady or whether he picks different uniforms or what coach he hires.

They have a business relationship but they are not partners. Players do not own part of the team. Players did not write any checks to purchase the team and won't receive one when it's sold. Players do not write checks to pay the other players. Players do not write checks to the hundreds of other team employees. Players do not deal with the team's payroll, upkeep or eventual demolition of an older stadium, or putting together a deal (along with protests and zoning laws and other barriers) for a new one. Players do not negotiate these lucrative network contracts that benefit them. People who don't put deals together think that the make-a-deal angel just appears from out of the sky and delivers a deal wrapped in a satin bow, and that working for said deal-maker means some type of transfer of ownership is appropriate. That doesn't mean players shouldn't get paid - and paid well, which they are - but they are not business partners simply because the ceiling of their collective compensation is tied to gross shared league revenue.

Call me crazy, but if the salary of one high-paid teammate caused an immediate decrease in take-home money of others, those others wouldn't be so in-favor of the high-priced teammate. Case in point, Revis wants Cromartie back but he's not going to affect his own bottom-line to get it, or pay Cromartie out of his own pocket (nor would I if I were Revis). Therein lies a good example of the difference between a team owner - and any of his true business partners - and an employee who works for them. Revis took a risk by not re-signing for less earlier, and it paid off for him. The risk he assumed does not pass onto another player like they were business partners, nor should it.

There's plenty to despise about these prick owners as well, which is why I really don't give a crap how much the players get and how much the owners get. But that doesn't make a player a business partner of the team owner he works for. I just want to watch football and will be happy when it's resolved, however that gets done, as long as there is a salary cap in place. Not to protect the owners' wallets, but to protect parity in the league so any one team can afford to pay the same players that any another can (desirable locations and local taxes notwithstanding).

[donboyO]

Players are Partners with Owners because they are the PRODUCT!! People pay good money to be entertained. These are not accountants pushing paper around.

[PatriotReign37]

Are you joking? There is also shared revenue among the teams. That doesn't mean Ralph Wilson owns part of the Patriots or has any say in whether or not he re-signs Tom Brady or whether he picks different uniforms or what coach he hires

The NFL teams share equally. Thats why the NFL is so popular unlike baseball.

Baseball players are employess. The Yankees keep most of their income and can afford to pay a player more money unlike low income generating teams like Kansas City.

They have a business relationship but they are not partners. Players do not own part of the team. Players did not write any checks to purchase the team and won't receive one when it's sold. Players do not write checks to pay the other players. Players do not write checks to the hundreds of other team employees. Players do not deal with the team's payroll, upkeep or eventual demolition of an older stadium, or putting together a deal (along with protests and zoning laws and other barriers) for a new one. Players do not negotiate these lucrative network contracts that benefit them. People who don't put deals together think that the make-a-deal angel just appears from out of the sky and delivers a deal wrapped in a satin bow, and that working for said deal-maker means some type of transfer of ownership is appropriate. That doesn't mean players shouldn't get paid - and paid well, which they are - but they are not business partners simply because the ceiling of their collective compensation is tied to gross shared league revenue.

No, the players dont write checks for any part of the owners side of the business. Thats not the players responsibility. They have enough to do meeting their obligations in their part of the business and growing the games popularity. The fans dont flock to Modells to see Woody Johnson.

You mention "ceiling of their collective compensation' like its a bad thing. The salary cap has risen every year since the cba began. Its out of control according to the owners.

[Scott Dierking]

The NFL teams share equally. Thats why the NFL is so popular unlike baseball.

Baseball players are employess. The Yankees keep most of their income and can afford to pay a player more money unlike low income generating teams like Kansas City.

No, the players dont write checks for any part of the owners side of the business. Thats not the players responsibility. They have enough to do meeting their obligations in their part of the business and growing the games popularity. The fans dont flock to Modells to see Woody Johnson.

You mention "ceiling of their collective compensation' like its a bad thing. The salary cap has risen every year since the cba began. Its out of control according to the owners.

You really believe that the teams share equally?

The largest part of this is that they DON'T. That is where the divide comes.

[Bugg]

You really believe that the teams share equally?

The largest part of this is that they DON'T. That is where the divide comes.

The NFL is moving away from parity income-wise. This is the divide. The owners are so reluctant to open the books they will only do it by allwoing a 3rd party to look at "redacted" books.Again that's like watching porn with the screwing pixilated. ANy 3rd party that would give an opinion on an incomplete picture like that is a professional a$$hole, and anyone who would rely on that a fool. In all likelihood the owners would redact anything embarrassing, like ridicuous expenses, not only not to have the players know it, but also to not have their fellow owners know about it.And bigger;they would probably not want to discuss the depreciation deduction one takes in the first few years of owning a billion dollar big market stadium, which is not really a cash outlay even though it counts as an expense against revenues.It's very possible to lose money on the books while in reality being chock full of cash. We are talking millions.

The divide is big market team with new stadiums who were sold for big bucks vs. small market old stadium teams who bought in cheap. That revenue sharing so all fine and good, but at some point the Jags need to go to San Antonio or LA, and the Bills need to go to Toronto. Buffalo and Jax among others cannot support an NFL team, so let's be done with it already. And it's not Woody or Kraft's fault that Carolina and Nashville suck money-wise.

[Scott Dierking]

The NFL is moving away from parity income-wise. This is the divide. The owners are so reluctant to open the books they will only do it by allwoing a 3rd party to look at "redacted" books.Again that's like watching porn with the screwing pixilated. ANy 3rd party that would give an opinion on an incomplete picture like that is a professional a$$hole, and anyone who would rely on that a fool. In all likelihood the owners would redact anything embarrassing, like ridicuous expenses, not only not to have the players know it, but also to not have their fellow owners know about it.And bigger;they would probably not want to discuss the depreciation deduction one takes in the first few years of owning a billion dollar big market stadium, which is not really a cash outlay even though it counts as an expense against revenues.It's very possible to lose money on the books while in reality being chock full of cash. We are talking millions.

The divide is big market team with new stadiums who were sold for big bucks vs. small market old stadium teams who bought in cheap. That revenue sharing so all fine and good, but at some point the Jags need to go to San Antonio or LA, and the Bills need to go to Toronto. Buffalo and Jax among others cannot support an NFL team, so let's be done with it already. And it's not Woody or Kraft's fault that Carolina and Nashville suck money-wise.

And. players should not have to know how money is spent. If an operator (owner) does a better job at marketing and operating his club, he should be the beneficiary of those profits. Players should not just get to "skim" because someone does a better job.

I honestly can't say what part EBITDA plays in the valuation of worth of an NFL franchise, and how it differs from Corporate America.