Savage69 Posted May 8, 2011 Share Posted May 8, 2011 They dont want to open the books because other than maybe the Jags all these teams are making huge sums of money. How can the Cowboys, Giants and Jets in good conscience after gouging the fans with these ridiculous fees this past year claim that they are facing "hard economic times"? They cant. Its ridiculous of them to say that the "fans have to bear the burden" in spite of the rough economy (and even in a good economy those are outrageous) and then turn around and claim that the economics have changed so much that the players must give back. And all the changing economy talk is a joke. They opted out of this deal before everything tanked. Ive always said it was the owners right to opt out, but they have to be honest about why they are doing it and simply say they feel that they are not making enough money. Its not about saving the game. Its not about giving the fans more football. Its not about having a more competitive league. Its not about rookies making too much guaranteed money. Its about the owners feeling they deserve to earn more money. Thats their right to say, but just be honest about it and say it. The reason the NBA is doing what they do is because they are going to ask for a ton back from the players. Major salary reductions and possible contraction of a few teams. When that is the offer you are making you have to give the players a ton of access to make your case stick. The NFL has no case. GreenBay does open their books because their owned by the community and they netted less then Revis makes.. http://www.totalpackers.com/2010/07/14/green-bay-packers-increase-net-profits-to-5-2-million/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugg Posted May 8, 2011 Share Posted May 8, 2011 The great unwritten story of this off-season is that Jerry Richardson, after screaming at Peyton Manning and Tom Brady for making so much money, is going to have to turn around and hand Cam Newton a check for $50 million dollars. There's something Shakespearean about that. The NFL long ago decided that the best way to market the game was to push marquee QBs. We all hate Brady and Manning(as Jets fans) and we hate the way rules are changed and betn to indulge and coddle them.But that marketing has worked, or it would not be a $9 billion industry. When Richardson did that he showed that he and others like him really don't understand the harm this is doing to their indsutry; you don't badmouth your best assets, and certainly not to their faces. Big games and Playoff games featuring those kinds of players make thew woners huge money is TV. No one is paying a cent to see anything Jerry Richarson does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugg Posted May 8, 2011 Share Posted May 8, 2011 GreenBay does open their books because their owned by the community and they netted less then Revis makes.. http://www.totalpackers.com/2010/07/14/green-bay-packers-increase-net-profits-to-5-2-million/ They can hide cash money in depreciation on their stadium and plant improvements.Or salaries to club officials. Or stock distributions to shareholders. A decent accounting team can and often does turn a big profit into nothing, legally, to avoid taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage69 Posted May 8, 2011 Share Posted May 8, 2011 They can hide cash money in depreciation on their stadium and plant improvements.Or salaries to club officials. Or stock distributions to shareholders. A decent accounting team can and often does turn a big profit into nothing, legally, to avoid taxes. So what your saying is it doesn't matter if the books are open or not the players and the fans that hate the owners will say that their lying anyway.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugg Posted May 8, 2011 Share Posted May 8, 2011 So what your saying is it doesn't matter if the books are open or not the players and the fans that hate the owners will say that their lying anyway.. No. Simply businesses will do their best to minimize, legally, their incomes when it's in their interests to do so. And things like depreciation, good will, capital additions, etc. cna allow businesses to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason423 Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 GreenBay does open their books because their owned by the community and they netted less then Revis makes.. http://www.totalpackers.com/2010/07/14/green-bay-packers-increase-net-profits-to-5-2-million/ Part of the reason the Packers earned so little in 2009 was because of some creative cap manuevering where they paid huge sums of cash out to certain players whereas in a normal year those expenses would have not been paid out that way. That was a decision made by the front office not a decision forced on Green Bay by the escalating cap. Overall revenue was higher than prior years. Realistically player expenses would have been about 5 million less in 2009 had there not been the CAM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatriotReign37 Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 The great unwritten story of this off-season is that Jerry Richardson, after screaming at Peyton Manning and Tom Brady for making so much money, is going to have to turn around and hand Cam Newton a check for $50 million dollars. There's something Shakespearean about that. Not if the lockout is upheld and the players quit this charade to go back to being a union. A rookie salary cap will be part of the new CBA. Cam Newton is a perfect example why there should be a rookie cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugg Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 Not if the lockout is upheld and the players quit this charade to go back to being a union. A rookie salary cap will be part of the new CBA. Cam Newton is a perfect example why there should be a rookie cap. Both sides would probably agree to allocate more cap space to vets than to rookies. But you have to negotiate that, which means lifting the lookout and talking to the NFLPA rather than another reporter . One other thing about the Packers open books; financial accounting techniques to minimize income are nothing new and not a good reason to not release the books of all teams.The NFLPA knows as much, and would quickly figure out how much cash on hand teams have, and their revnues and cash flows. Further, not clear if the Packers' playoff run counts in that statement; they got 3 road gates and the Super Bowl. If their fiscal year ended 12/31/2010, none of that income would be in there. And keep in mind players get paid nothing in salary during the playoffs, only the bonuses the league gives out to all playoff teams at the end. So entirely plausible the Packers had 4 road playoff gates including the Super Bowl in January and February with no player salaries dispensed. Heck they would have an incentive to not report that income until they have all their 2011 expenses lined up to offset their revenue and drop the income number. Because the Packers are owned by a municiplaity is no less a reason to avoid showing income. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatriotReign37 Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 Both sides would probably agree to allocate more cap space to vets than to rookies. But you have to negotiate that, which means lifting the lookout and talking to the NFLPA rather than another reporter If the lockout is lifted, that means more lawsuits by the players. IMO, the fastest way to a CBA is for the lockout to stay so the NFLPA is forced to recertify as a union again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetsfan80 Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 Jerry Richardson, after screaming at Peyton Manning and Tom Brady for making so much money, is going to have to turn around and hand Cam Newton a check for $50 million dollars. Will Cam get one of the big checks like lottery winners get? And can we make Jerry Richardson wear a funny hat while he does it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 GreenBay does open their books because their owned by the community and they netted less then Revis makes.. http://www.totalpackers.com/2010/07/14/green-bay-packers-increase-net-profits-to-5-2-million/ If they only made $5.2 million in net profit on a record revenue of $238 million then the people managing that team need to be fired and investigated for skimming off the top. The company I work for had revenue of $172 million last year with a net profit just south of $14 million. Player salaries with a salary cap are a set number and couldn't be more than $126 million. Now, I understand there was no cap last year but I can swear I remember reading that all teams in the NFL spent well below what the 2009 cap number was as many took advantage of the fact that with no salary cap there was also no salary floor so they cut player salaries to attempt to increase their bottom lines while anticipating a work stoppage. I'm sure someone like Jason423 can find the accurate info but I would guess the Packers payroll for players was probably in the $110-115 million range last year, so that means all of their other expenses, including taxes, added up to about $120 million? That's poor management. Those books have been seriously cooked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitonti Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 If they only made $5.2 million in net profit on a record revenue of $238 million then the people managing that team need to be fired and investigated for skimming off the top. the Packers are a not for profit entity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 the Packers are a not for profit entity. That doesn't mean they can't turn a profit, it means that all profits from their operations get pumped into the community. Oh, you mean for tax purposes? Well, they aren't a charity or a place of worship so I doubt they get the same tax breaks as those types of organizations get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitonti Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 That doesn't mean they can't turn a profit, yes but it does mean their priorities are different than every other team. they are more likely to spend profit than take it home. there's no profit taking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 yes but it does mean their priorities are different than every other team. they are more likely to spend profit than take it home. there's no profit taking. You're missing the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetsfan80 Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 You're missing the point. What's the point, that the Packers are run by the mob? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tparich Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 I think the point is that the packers don't have a guy in charge of figuring out how to best screw the fans out of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugg Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 I think the point is that the packers don't have a guy in charge of figuring out how to best screw the fans out of money. This.Somebody is in charge and they answer to a board. Even if they are "nonprofit" suspect they do their damndest to keep as many nickels inside Lambeau before they write any checks to Green Bay. Also, the fiscal year 2010 probably did not include 3 road playoff games and the Super Bowl, all of which they shared in the gate proceeds.If as per the various links they got $16 million for 8 road and 2 exhibtion gates, suspect that those 4 postseason games equalled or exceeded those other 10 gates when you consider the spikes in playoff and SB ticket costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.