What is a fair profit for an NFL owner?

[Guiness]

I agree with your numbers, to a point. I just thought your previous post used the wrong starting point, which makes the 65% number unlikely, IMO.

You could be right, you could be wrong. I've stated before that I think the owners are trying to force the players into a game of blind baseball.

If it isn't necessarily about the money (and I think Patler tends to share your view) I'm not sure what it's about.

You use Miami as an example - but all we can do is divinate the reason for selling of pieces of the team. If the NFL has a problem, why don't they offer to open up ONE team's books - a sacrificial lamb, Mike Brown would be a good choice, he's a notorious cheapskate. Ralph Wilson perhaps, he's so old he doesn't care. Open up the one set of books, and show us that someone is in trouble.

[retailguy]

I agree with your numbers, to a point. I just thought your previous post used the wrong starting point, which makes the 65% number unlikely, IMO.

If you look back at my original post, you'll see that I said "some of the lower market teams approaching 65%". Like any business, some of the teams aren't run as well as they could be run. I think you'd find some candidates in the lower quartile of teams organized by revenue. I was thinking Jacksonville and Buffalo, but I'm certain there are others.

If you divide 9 bln by 32, you get just south of $300 million for the "average team". If you assume that "non player salaries" are 10% of revenue (that may be high, but maybe not depending on the structure). You could also assume that teams operate with significant contractor personnel, which always boosts payroll costs, as the firms have markup for expenses and profit. Anyhow, if you apply this to the Packers, it's easy to get the 1st 10 million in non player salaries - McCarthy, Thompson, and Capers probably cover most of that 1st 10 mil. Salaries drop precipitously after you get through the top level staff and the coaching staff, but, it's in the realm of possibility that costs could be in that area, depending on bonuses, benefits, incentive packages, training programs, travel, etc...

But again, my main point wasn't a monetary analysis, rather it was to point out the downward pressure of ROI in this situation, and pointing out that it may not be so unreasonable, even without looking at the owners books.

You could be right, you could be wrong. I've stated before that I think the owners are trying to force the players into a game of blind baseball.

And the players are trying to force the owners into a reasonableness discussion. Not much difference.

If it isn't necessarily about the money (and I think Patler tends to share your view) I'm not sure what it's about.

The most likely guess is something that we are missing or are unaware of as Patler has stated. Obvious choice is always increasing power, which we've seen evidence of from both sides. I am certain that the main issue is NOT money, if it were, that's simple to fix, with or without numbers. Again, both sides have qualified financial people with access to plenty of data, certainly enough to bridge that gap.

You use Miami as an example - but all we can do is divinate the reason for selling of pieces of the team. If the NFL has a problem, why don't they offer to open up ONE team's books - a sacrificial lamb, Mike Brown would be a good choice, he's a notorious cheapskate. Ralph Wilson perhaps, he's so old he doesn't care. Open up the one set of books, and show us that someone is in trouble.

All we can do is speculate all of the issues. We have access to very limited data of any type.

Almost all of these owners are very successful businessmen in areas other than the NFL. They understand the risks and pitfalls of taking on partners. Ross is being very careful with his "partners" I am sure, but there is still a rationale. If it were one or two high profile folks, I'd say it's marketing, but it's more than that.

He needs (maybe a bad word) the money for some reason. Equity capital can be a way to raise capital without affecting existing debt ratios, or mortgaging the future with another payment. If there are no profits, there is no distribution. Agreements can be written limiting distribution of earnings, raising one time cash, with no near term future payments. Could be effective for certain expansion plans. Sheer speculation on my part, but not unreasonable either.

There already are one teams financials out there - OURS. It isn't good enough for the NFLPA*. Those numbers give some credence to what the owners are claiming. Again, glossed over by the union. My guess is that it's a game of "all or nothing" for the Union. That's why I think there is more to this than money. Hell of a gamble for that.

[Guiness]

And the players are trying to force the owners into a reasonableness discussion. Not much difference.

A reasonablness discussion? I'm not sure what that means (seriously)

The most likely guess is something that we are missing or are unaware of as Patler has stated. Obvious choice is always increasing power, which we've seen evidence of from both sides. I am certain that the main issue is NOT money, if it were, that's simple to fix, with or without numbers. Again, both sides have qualified financial people with access to plenty of data, certainly enough to bridge that gap.

That's a scary thought, and I hope you're wrong. Because you are correct, if it's about money, it's just a matter of dividing it up one way or the other. Then neither side will want to throw away a season, because they'll never earn that money back.

If this is about egos and power....ouch.

There already are one teams financials out there - OURS. It isn't good enough for the NFLPA*. Those numbers give some credence to what the owners are claiming. Again, glossed over by the union. My guess is that it's a game of "all or nothing" for the Union. That's why I think there is more to this than money. Hell of a gamble for that.

I know, but it's admittedly a small sample size, and I don't think the Pack is representative of the league as a whole. We're a unique situation in all of pro sports, being a public company, and likely the smallest city with a franchise in all of pro sports. You can hardly point at us and claim we're the status quo.