What is a fair profit for an NFL owner?

[Patler]

PB;

I agree with all your comments about company value, appreciation, etc. But in many ways that is irrelevant to a situation that will soon arise. At some point in the near future the players will be getting their noses into the teams finances, and will see what the owners have taken out for their own use on a yearly basis. How much the owners have paid themselves. The players should recognize that it is fair for the owners to take some money from ongoing operations. If the owners average $2 million/year, I doubt players will find fault in that. If they find the owners "take" is $100 M/year, I suspect they will scream long and loud that more of that should be given to the players.

It's a very practical issue that will surface soon. It doesn't have to be made more complicated than it is (or will be).

[Guiness]

PB;

I agree with all your comments about company value, appreciation, etc. But in many ways that is irrelevant to a situation that will soon arise. At some point in the near future the players will be getting their noses into the teams finances, and will see what the owners have taken out for their own use on a yearly basis. How much the owners have paid themselves. The players should recognize that it is fair for the owners to take some money from ongoing operations. If the owners average $2 million/year, I doubt players will find fault in that. If they find the owners "take" is $100 M/year, I suspect they will scream long and loud that more of that should be given to the players.

It's a very practical issue that will surface soon. It doesn't have to be made more complicated than it is (or will be).

See, that's where I disagree with you, and think that there is no 'magic' number that is acceptable for profit.

I don't think the trouble with opening the books will come from learning one of the owners makes $100million/year. I think it will come from questionable accounting practices, like the ones pbmax and myself brought up earlier...i.e. an owner taking a $100million dollar salary, and putting it in the expense column, instead of the profit column.

I think at much as issue as the division of the revenue/profits is how that number is arrived at.

You could be correct in your other post, of course, that this is all a red hearing, and the players actually want something totally different, like getting rid of the tags, or wholesale changes to FA. I, personally don't think so. I think the root issue is the one stated up front, that the owners are saying the profit margin is too low, and the players don't believe them. After that, it's all egos and grandstanding.

[rbaloha1]

See, that's where I disagree with you, and think that there is no 'magic' number that is acceptable for profit.

I don't think the trouble with opening the books will come from learning one of the owners makes $100million/year. I think it will come from questionable accounting practices, like the ones pbmax and myself brought up earlier...i.e. an owner taking a $100million dollar salary, and putting it in the expense column, instead of the profit column.

I think at much as issue as the division of the revenue/profits is how that number is arrived at.

You could be correct in your other post, of course, that this is all a red hearing, and the players actually want something totally different, like getting rid of the tags, or wholesale changes to FA. I, personally don't think so. I think the root issue is the one stated up front, that the owners are saying the profit margin is too low, and the players don't believe them. After that, it's all egos and grandstanding.

Yea -- lets see the books with General Accounting Principals and not books that hide revenues from Uncle Sam.

[Tony Oday]

Yea -- lets see the books with General Accounting Principals and not books that hide revenues from Uncle Sam.

Why? No shareholders they can run the damn thing the way they want. I have made banks millions of dollars in my career so now I own my own brokerage so I can capture more of the money that was making others rich. These are employees and that is it.

[rbaloha1]

Why? No shareholders they can run the damn thing the way they want. I have made banks millions of dollars in my career so now I own my own brokerage so I can capture more of the money that was making others rich. These are employees and that is it.

If you are hiding revenue you are breaking federal law.

[packerbacker1234]

If you are hiding revenue you are breaking federal law.

Yes, if you are hiding revenue from the Government you are breaking federal law. There is no law stating that employees are entitled to know the finances of the company they work for. The company may choose to share those finances, or in the case of the Packers be required too because they are owned by the fans, but the bottom line is, as an employee, I have no right to go to the top of the chain in my business and ask for their revenue and proft margins, and where all the money goes. That is for the government to know, not the employee.

Do I know they can afford to pay me more? Sure. And you know what happens if I demand more money? I'm fired with 100's of other people waiting to take my job. That's the same way the NFL is. IF players want to "hold out" or whatever, there are THOUSANDS of people who didn't make in the NFL that would gladly take their place for a FRACTION of the cost of a normal NFL player. Point here is that while the Owners are significant;y richer than any player, that doesn't mean the players really have it so bad. I understand footing more support for retired players, but hte players of today make significantly more money than the ones of the old days. Thi smeans that if they end up broke, like Russel is right now, why should the NFL be supporting them after they stop playing? In today's NFL a player makes plenty of money in 4 to 8 seasons to support himself and his family for the rest of his life. If the rest of us can survive on an average of 40k a year, no reason an NFL player that banks maybe 60 million in a career can't better manage it to either turn it into more money (reinvesting, starting a business, etc). You hand me 60 million dollars and I am set for life. I don't need 12 sports cards, 7 SuVS, and 3 houses. It's just a waste of money. Sure, I'll have a damn nice car, maybe 2 or 3 per family needs, and yes one really nice house. But I wont be blowing the wad out the gate. Conserve and invest. Make some returns.

[rbaloha1]

Yes, if you are hiding revenue from the Government you are breaking federal law. There is no law stating that employees are entitled to know the finances of the company they work for. The company may choose to share those finances, or in the case of the Packers be required too because they are owned by the fans, but the bottom line is, as an employee, I have no right to go to the top of the chain in my business and ask for their revenue and proft margins, and where all the money goes. That is for the government to know, not the employee.

Do I know they can afford to pay me more? Sure. And you know what happens if I demand more money? I'm fired with 100's of other people waiting to take my job. That's the same way the NFL is. IF players want to "hold out" or whatever, there are THOUSANDS of people who didn't make in the NFL that would gladly take their place for a FRACTION of the cost of a normal NFL player. Point here is that while the Owners are significant;y richer than any player, that doesn't mean the players really have it so bad. I understand footing more support for retired players, but hte players of today make significantly more money than the ones of the old days. Thi smeans that if they end up broke, like Russel is right now, why should the NFL be supporting them after they stop playing? In today's NFL a player makes plenty of money in 4 to 8 seasons to support himself and his family for the rest of his life. If the rest of us can survive on an average of 40k a year, no reason an NFL player that banks maybe 60 million in a career can't better manage it to either turn it into more money (reinvesting, starting a business, etc). You hand me 60 million dollars and I am set for life. I don't need 12 sports cards, 7 SuVS, and 3 houses. It's just a waste of money. Sure, I'll have a damn nice car, maybe 2 or 3 per family needs, and yes one really nice house. But I wont be blowing the wad out the gate. Conserve and invest. Make some returns.

Senator Rockefeller disagrees with you:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...022406519.html

[pbmax]

PB;

I agree with all your comments about company value, appreciation, etc. But in many ways that is irrelevant to a situation that will soon arise. At some point in the near future the players will be getting their noses into the teams finances, and will see what the owners have taken out for their own use on a yearly basis. How much the owners have paid themselves. The players should recognize that it is fair for the owners to take some money from ongoing operations. If the owners average $2 million/year, I doubt players will find fault in that. If they find the owners "take" is $100 M/year, I suspect they will scream long and loud that more of that should be given to the players.

It's a very practical issue that will surface soon. It doesn't have to be made more complicated than it is (or will be).

It is a very practical question, and I hope the players react with maturity should they actually see the numbers and especially if they can link them to a specific owner. In fact, if I was advising the negotiating players, I would advise them to ask for codes for franchises, so the numbers cannot be tied to an individual. I am sure one or two will say something regrettable, but most will stay silent on specifics. Mostly I think they will do this because they will spend large sums of money in a similar manner and no one looks good when the the wealthy bemoan the habits of other wealthy people.

But I suspect that the real debate, once it is settled on how much profits have declined, is how to restrain player costs without dropping their total percentage to below 2006 levels. Because the owners have talked about that as a bench mark but the players seem convinced the owners last ten year proposal drops them well below that level.

[Patler]

It is a very practical question, and I hope the players react with maturity should they actually see the numbers and especially if they can link them to a specific owner. In fact, if I was advising the negotiating players, I would advise them to ask for codes for franchises, so the numbers cannot be tied to an individual. I am sure one or two will say something regrettable, but most will stay silent on specifics. Mostly I think they will do this because they will spend large sums of money in a similar manner and no one looks good when the the wealthy bemoan the habits of other wealthy people.

But I suspect that the real debate, once it is settled on how much profits have declined, is how to restrain player costs without dropping their total percentage to below 2006 levels. Because the owners have talked about that as a bench mark but the players seem convinced the owners last ten year proposal drops them well below that level.

I hope the negotiators and advisers look beyond the bare percentage going to the players, and also look at the income sources that make up the calculation, what the owners do with their shares of the income etc. A slightly lower percentage of a much larger pot can make the players even more wealthy. The owners have claimed that they need a higher percentage to fund stadium improvements and other things that improve the overall business. I understand that some but not all of those things go to players, but some clearly do with bigger better stadiums.

The players may be faced with a decision about trust in the owners ability to continually increase the overall business, and would they rather have 59% of $9 billion or 57% of $10 billion. Taking a lower percentage might result in more money in their pockets, if the owner really can use the extra money to increase overall income as they have suggested they have and can.

[Lurker64]

The players may be faced with a decision about trust in the owners ability to continually increase the overall business, and would they rather have 59% of $9 billion or 57% of $10 billion. Taking a lower percentage might result in more money in their pockets, if the owner really can use the extra money to increase overall income as they have suggested they have and can.

Wouldn't a reasonable way to go about this be, instead of having a fixed offset in the CBA given to the owners, have variable offsets available to the owners allocated specifically for well-defined things that will actually increase the league's revenue (stadium renovations, etc.)? This will probably end up being intensely political if there's a finite amount of money available for this, similar to applying for grants, but it seems to be a way to make sure that the extra money for owners goes towards growing the league rather than wallpapering the bathroom with $50 bills.

[mraynrand]

... rather than wallpapering the bathroom with $50 bills.

Adam Jones approves this move. He would also like three bathrooms - Men, Women, and Minxx.