Printable View
Why should I start a business, risk my capital, burn out my mind for 5% when I can invest in condos and make 7%? You have a skewed idea of what a business should make. In fairness to you, you admitted as much, right before imposing judgement on what sounds about right. Try 20% or more. Definately more if you incurred debt to build said business.Quote:
Originally Posted by channtheman
As I said above. 10% is not enough return to get me to put in the work. Reassess and try again.Quote:
Originally Posted by packrat
I think this is incredibly key. Too few people are pointing this out. The owners who have invested heavily in a team, I think, should be making way more than the top employees.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobblehead
Hold the fort a second. Owners do not profit (in the loosest sense of the word - perhaps should say benefit) from yearly profits alone. So to judge yearly profit figures against a 5 or 10% yearly return is like saying you expect your equity holdings to pay dividends equivalent to 5 or 10% of your investment. Not likely to happen and you are forgetting a major point of investing. The asset that you own.
You need to know the value of the asset over time to determine what kind of ROI you are getting. That plus profit figures (and the rest of the balance sheet) might get you to a fair number. You could also compare to other sports holdings and similarly sized businesses.
A fair profit is difficult to peg from the outside, it is much harder if you do not know how much the entire business value has appreciated in the time it has been held.
Its impossible to determine a fair profit when the owners fail to properly document revenues and expenses.
Which is exactly why I threw in the first option in the poll. However, absent other sources, a person can't live on increased equity in a business. You have to take out some cash by way of a salary or something.Quote:
Originally Posted by pbmax
Perhaps a better way to have phrased the poll would have been this - "What is a fair salary for an owner to pay himself, assuming the rest of profits are somehow tied up in or reinvested in the business?"
One of the hangups in the "open your books discussion" is that the players will see how much money the owner pays to himself and his family. As one writer wrote, the amount is not significant in the overall scheme, but there will be some items that can be a PR embarrassment. Lumping these together as an owner's "take" avoids the touchy subjects of $250,000 salaries given to spoiled kids to do nothing, etc. Still, overall, what is an acceptable number for the owner's family if he is payig his average employee $3M/ year, and a bunch of his top employees are getting $10-25M?
You can always talk about a fair profit. The fair profit we are talking about is the actual, accurate number, whether it is the owners number, the players number or more likely something in between.Quote:
Originally Posted by rbaloha
If it is reasonable for Irsay to pay Peyton Manning $25 million/year, is it unreasonable for him to pay himself $40 million/year from the Colts? SHould he be satisfied with "only" $10 million?
Again -- impossible to determine an actual number w/o full disclosure. Its moot since full disclosure shall not occur -- nor should it. Players are entertainers with a unique set of skills. The market determine the wage. However the market could be corrupted due to a blatant violation of anti trust laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by Patler
I suspect whoever voted for "$0 - They make their money when they sell the team." is not a Packers fan or has not actually thought about this very much. The Packers cannot be sold for profit, it's in the team charter that if the team is sold that all money goes to charity (I believe it was formerly a war memorial, but it was changed at some point). There is no rich owner to pay the bills when the Packers take a loss, they're only able to do that because they put their profits in a war chest/rainy day fund.
If you believe that the fair amount of profit for an NFL team is $0, then you believe that the Packers should not exist.
Why is disclosure of anything required for determining what a "fair" profit is? The question is merely "supposing that the books were exposed, what profits by the owners would lend you to conclude 'that's enough'." Saying "I can't answer" a question that presupposes "if the books were opened..." by saying "I can't answer unless they opened the books" is absolutely nonsensical.Quote:
Originally Posted by rbaloha
Actually its easy to figure. As much as the market will bear. What you think is fair can be voted on by you spending your money on the product. What the players think is fair will be determined by them choosing a different career.Quote:
Originally Posted by rbaloha
The reality of the situation is that the players have demanded, and likely will get significant access to their owners' books. They will be given a number or will calulate a number on their own that represents the owners annual cash take from the business. Some players have implied that the owners currently get too much, and more of the $9 billion should go to the players. That presupposes that there is an acceptable amount for an owner to "take". I am trying to get a feel for that number.Quote:
Originally Posted by rbaloha
If Peyton Manning is paid $25 million, if the players determine that Irsay paid himself and his family $40 million, will that be fair? Is it fair to him if all gets on a year to year basis is $5 million?
Can fans ask what is a "fair" amount for a player to make......and then demand lower ticket prices and less commercials about erection difficulties?
TEN CLAP POSTQuote:
Originally Posted by Bossman641
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustinHarrell
It's their choice; all of life is a choice for employees. If they don't want to make that risk for the absurd amount of money they get, then they can choose to get different jobs.
So far, the overwhelming consensus here seems to be that owners should be taking home a lot, $40 million or more.
Annually, that's approaching $1.5 billion for the 32 teams.
Annually, player salaries are in the neighborhood of $4.5 billion.
If the pie is $9 billion, that leaves $3 billion for everything else. Sounds like a lot, but it is only about $100 million per team, which has to pay for coaches salaries, GM, scouting staff, medical and training staff, office and field personnel, and all employees benefits like insurance, equipment costs, travel expenses, food, lodging, etc., etc.
Yes, there are other sources of income not part of the $9 billion, but there are also other expenses relating to stadium building, renovating and upkeep that I didn't include above.
My point is this, it doesn't seem that the amount of money that reasonably could go one direction or another is really all that much. A few million extra per owner on the one hand or a few thousand per player on the other shouldn't have stopped this from settling.
I think this is more about ego and "winning" than it is about the money.
The owners and players should have considered the saying,"Be careful what you wish for, because you might just get it."
Actually Patler, I think they should divvy up 6 million and lower prices for the fans...
I'm pretty sure it was you, and your second statement makes me think so even more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Patler
The discussion was about how players wanted full disclosure, and you said you'd been involved in negotiations, and no one would ever think of asking a private business to reveal it's books.
Are you not understanding the question? You don't need actual numbers to determine what a fair rate of return is. Assuming the owner is not making distributions to himself, what is a fair percentage?Quote:
Originally Posted by rbaloha