What is a fair profit for an NFL owner?

[Guiness]

Reasonableness - "Is it really reasonable how "team X" is spending their money?" "Shouldn't the money be spent in an xx manner instead of how team x spent it?"


The majority of our expenses would not be any different than any other team, except possibly mgmt salaries. Are we structured differently? Don't know. we certainly don't have an "owner salary", but other than that, what's the difference? we don't have distributions, or anything close. Maybe a bit for sarbanes oxley? Not sure, but I'll bet it's negligible.

Also, we have "high" revenue compared to most teams (I think we're 9th). The union better damn well hope we aren't "representative". If we are, then the owners are probably not wrong.

You think they don't just want to audit the books, but critic the spending habits as well? I'm not so sure about that. I think that the players want to see the books to make sure the owners aren't cooking them. I made another post earlier that talked about some of the expenses that were found when they opened the books in '82 - like owners taking large salaries, and declaring it an expense rather than profit.

[Patler]

You think they don't just want to audit the books, but critic the spending habits as well? I'm not so sure about that. I think that the players want to see the books to make sure the owners aren't cooking them. I made another post earlier that talked about some of the expenses that were found when they opened the books in '82 - like owners taking large salaries, and declaring it an expense rather than profit.

Those become interesting discussions. If the owner is an active participant in day to day operations (for example, he functions as the GM, and does not pay a true GM) is he entitled to be a paid employee as well as the owner, with at least some of his compensation considered an expense?

[Guiness]

Those become interesting discussions. If the owner is an active participant in day to day operations (for example, he functions as the GM, and does not pay a true GM) is he entitled to be a paid employee as well as the owner, with at least some of his compensation considered an expense?

lol - I guess the concept of 'fair' gets dragged back into things kicking and screaming!

In a corporation, an "owner's" salary would be considered an expense, if he's an employee of the company. The fact that that employee happens to own the majority of the company's shares doesn't change that.

However, when a certain employee receives a salary an order of magnitude larger than the next highest paid employee, and he happens to also have a controlling interest, it's pretty obvious things are being done that way to control the visible bottom line.

In 1982, the average NFL salary was $90K. One of the owners was shown to have taken a "salary" of $6million. He must've been doing some heavy lifting!

I make no judgment as to whether or not that was a 'fair' amount for the owner to take. He can take whatever he wants out of the company, its his. I take issue, however, with him using that salary to affect the perceived profit of the team, then point to the bottom line and say "we're barely treading water!"

[Patler]

lol - I guess the concept of 'fair' gets dragged back into things kicking and screaming!

In a corporation, an "owner's" salary would be considered an expense, if he's an employee of the company. The fact that that employee happens to own the majority of the company's shares doesn't change that.

However, when a certain employee receives a salary an order of magnitude larger than the next highest paid employee, and he happens to also have a controlling interest, it's pretty obvious things are being done that way to control the visible bottom line.

In 1982, the average NFL salary was $90K. One of the owners was shown to have taken a "salary" of $6million. He must've been doing some heavy lifting!

I make no judgment as to whether or not that was a 'fair' amount for the owner to take. He can take whatever he wants out of the company, its his. I take issue, however, with him using that salary to affect the perceived profit of the team, then point to the bottom line and say "we're barely treading water!"

I agree regarding your example from 1982, but that was in an entirely different era, with entirely different financial relationships between players and owners. But even if the $6 million was not justified, should $150 K (or some amount appropriate for the job he held) been rightly considered as an expense (assuming he held a legitimate position)?