$0 - They make their money when they sell the team.
$10 M max. Similar to players on their second contract
$10 - $20 M. Like a top line veteran player
$20 - 30 M. As much as the highest paid players
$30 - 40 M. A bit more than the top players
$40 M+. Its a huge investments in a wildly successful business. A solid return is deserved.
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.Originally Posted by rbaloha
Swede: My expertise in this area is extensive. The essential difference between a "battleship" and an "aircraft carrier" is that an aircraft carrier requires five direct hits to sink, but it takes only four direct hits to sink a battleship.
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.
Senator Rockefeller disagrees with you:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...022406519.html
More to ponder...
http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...043784,00.html
Keep in mind that Rockefeller suggested that the league opened up their books in the sense that they gave them to a mutually agreed upon third party who will redact any sensitive information. The Owners actually offered the players this for the last five years, and the NFLPA turned down that offer. They didn't say "we'd like more but we'll take that and look at it" they just turned it down.
But again this has nothing to do with the actual topic of the thread, which is "what is a reasonable profit for an NFL team to make."
</delurk>
Okay what should a new thread be titled?
A new thread about what?
</delurk>
+1
$$$
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.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
I don't think they are that close yet. Yes, the owners are at 5 years of data, but they were there a week ago or more. There is no single authoritative account that I have seen yet of exactly what the owners offered, but its is clear that it lays somewhere between profit numbers for each franchise (their previous offer) and the complete audited financial statements. PFT threw up its hands this week and said it was hard to nail down the disconnect beyond the time frame.
Their current offer seems to be audited figures used to calculate the profit numbers. Since its selective, any third party (I have trouble seeing the players objecting to blind numbers if they can agree on a firm and then hand those numbers to their own accountants) would have trouble doing anything other than verifying the math.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
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.
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.
</delurk>
Adam Jones approves this move. He would also like three bathrooms - Men, Women, and Minxx.
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
I'm not exactly sure how much the owners are investing in those stadiums but I do know that the tax payers end up paying for the bulk of it.
And while owners invest millions in the team these players shorter and risk their lives every time they step on the field for our entertainment and now the owners want to take 1 billion away from the players when the NFL is at its highest? Its a fucking joke.
Yeah, you're right, it is a joke. People like you need to get some type of business school education, because you obviously have no idea of ROI. The greedy owners made this game and if you can't accept that, well, it's a joke. They make millionaires out of slum thugs in many cases. Poor slaves.
Didn't Jones end up paying almost three times as much as the taxpayers? I think Arlington paid $350 million, and Jones something like $900+ million.
I believe the Giants and Jets paid the entire cost, or at least most of it, with no taxpayer input.
I think the lack of available taxpayer money is a big reason the owners want a larger cut off the top. Can you imagine trying to get a municipality to build you a new stadium now or in the next few years? It might not be impossible, but it's definitely not a job I'd want. So, if you can't get it from the tax payers get it from the players.
I think much of the talk of the players getting other jobs or the owners going for the throat is more emotional than pragmatic. You could not replace the players with any where near the same quality of men, despite the fact that others would jump at the chance to play for less. If I watch soccer I watch Champions League because by watching a team like Barcelona play I see soccer played at the highest level. I couldn't even name the teams in the MLS. I mean you could also argue that if an owner doesn't like the deal they can sell the team and put their money into other business ventures. But that is not going to happen.
Remember, this is a highly successful overall business and ultimately they both need one another to make as much money as they do. And both the parties involved in this struggle are getting very rich. So, they each have strong impetus to work this out before they stifle the passion for the league.
The issue of fairness is tough to answer, because it is subjective. I mean is it fair that there are children born HIV positive in war zones while other children get to grow up and inherit the Yankees? I would say no. I'm being glib though, I know the question was posed within the scope of the negotiations.
On the players side I understand them rankling at the fact that the owners are asking them to play two more games, and give up a billion dollars when fan interest and TV dollars are as high as they have ever been.
I understand the owners making the point that if you want to be business partners than you should chip in on some of the capital costs that it takes to grow the business.
As far as what the owners make, they're going to maximize their profits within legally conscripted boundaries. They can't, for instance, sell cocaine at the concession stands. That seems fair. However, the players have much more leverage than any other pool of employees that I can think of and that's why metaphors relating to any other business I can think of aren't applicable.
I don't think anything about this is about fairness. It is about leverage. As an example, a friend of mine worked at a bond trading company in Chicago as their network administrator. He quit to move to Milwaukee with his family. They immediately had major system failures. This is obviously a huge problem if you're trying to trade in bonds. They called him and said, 'what's it going to take for you to come back?'. He told them he'd do it as a contractor for $100/hr. They agreed, things got back to running smoothly. Within a month his boss sat him down and said,'listen, I want you here, but I can't pay you as a contractor. What are we going to do about that?'. He asked for his old salary, but instead of five days a week he'd take the train down two days and be available to fix things remotely for the equivalent of one day a week. Could he have asked for this before he quit as an ultimatum? No way. Did they agree? Yup. This is leverage not fairness that is in play.
As far as what the union really wants, which Patler raised earlier, I think secondarily they want to get all the owners financials so that they can see if there are some profits being hidden as costs. But, I think the primary reason is their hope that they can cause dissension within the ranks of the owners. If every owner gets to see how much the richest teams are making that isn't subject to revenue sharing they are liable to try to get a piece of it. The Ralph Wilson's of the league can make the argument that, hey we've been saying that shared revenue drives competitive parity, which drives viewership and attendance, which drives profits. And that's a reasonably strong argument because it correlates to the most profitable period of growth in league history.
At that point, the players weaken the ownership because of division and if more revenue goes into the shared pool that would presumably raise the amount that goes toward player salaries. Which is obviously a major focus of the union short and long term.
And how can you make this statement? How can you use all of that wonderful business school education and determine ROI in the NFL? The owners have not once stated a number for their profits. That seems to be a critical number to calculate ROI. In fact, gross income numbers aren't used to calculate ROI so the one number we know for sure isn't useful to determine ROI. Just looking at the values of the franchises you can see how much owners will make on the sale of their teams without looking at yearly profit/loss.
I am a CPA and I can't tell you the ROI for the owners without looking at the books.
Last edited by ThunderDan; 03-21-2011 at 07:36 AM.
But Rodgers leads the league in frumpy expressions and negative body language on the sideline, which makes him, like Josh Allen, a unique double threat.
-Tim Harmston
Partial used to make entertaining statements like this. "Well, I don't know anything about what I'm going to tell you, but I'm going to go ahead and tell you with certainty that I am right."
Is it that you don't want to educate yourself before you form an opinion and argue it as fact, or that you're not capable?
Last edited by SkinBasket; 03-21-2011 at 08:17 AM. Reason: what the fuck?
"You're all very smart, and I'm very dumb." - Partial
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote