Financial Report

[packerbacker1234]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AqryLWSURsynpV3n_iAsGQlDubYF?slug=ap-packers-financials

All the more reason something needs to happen with this agreement. Forget the holdout - the packers are still one of the top dollar teams in terms of revenue in the NFL, and were almost at the point of not being profitable anymore due mostly to player salary.

We always knew this - thing such as if we lose NFL revenue or there is no cap, we don't ahve enough money to stay competitive for long. (about 130 mill put away).

In cases like this, 2 extra games a year and 9 thousand more seats seems good for a team like the packers. Thats more revenue, and players need to understand that the cap is there for a reason, and it's not to hurt them.

Will be interesting how this plays out - there is still time to sort it out so there is football next year, but the big deal is $. We are almost at the point of not being profitable, even though every season we are making more money. There needs to be a cap, and the nfl has to use shared revenue to help pay those salaries, or teams like the packers are done, and there will be even less jobs available for football players.

It's just interesting looking at the numbers, since publicly the packers are the only team we are going to see these numbers from.

[ThunderDan]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AqryLWSURsynpV3n_iAsGQlDubYF?slug=ap-packers-financials

All the more reason something needs to happen with this agreement. Forget the holdout - the packers are still one of the top dollar teams in terms of revenue in the NFL, and were almost at the point of not being profitable anymore due mostly to player salary.

We always knew this - thing such as if we lose NFL revenue or there is no cap, we don't ahve enough money to stay competitive for long. (about 130 mill put away).

In cases like this, 2 extra games a year and 9 thousand more seats seems good for a team like the packers. Thats more revenue, and players need to understand that the cap is there for a reason, and it's not to hurt them.

Will be interesting how this plays out - there is still time to sort it out so there is football next year, but the big deal is $. We are almost at the point of not being profitable, even though every season we are making more money. There needs to be a cap, and the nfl has to use shared revenue to help pay those salaries, or teams like the packers are done, and there will be even less jobs available for football players.

It's just interesting looking at the numbers, since publicly the packers are the only team we are going to see these numbers from.

Something isn't quite "right" with the numbers.

The NFL has a cap and the players are guaranteed a certain %. Revenues have increased 4% and salaries 15% over the previous year.

So that leads me to 2 possibly conclusions.
1. The Packers revenue isn't growing as fast as other teams revenues.
2. The % of the total revenue isn't being reported correctly and therefore the players "pool" to be paid out of isn't correct calculated. (This would follow the players arguement that they need to see all of the teams books.)

That is my 30 second analysis on the 6 or 7 hard numbers given in the article.

[packerbacker1234]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AqryLWSURsynpV3n_iAsGQlDubYF?slug=ap-packers-financials

All the more reason something needs to happen with this agreement. Forget the holdout - the packers are still one of the top dollar teams in terms of revenue in the NFL, and were almost at the point of not being profitable anymore due mostly to player salary.

We always knew this - thing such as if we lose NFL revenue or there is no cap, we don't ahve enough money to stay competitive for long. (about 130 mill put away).

In cases like this, 2 extra games a year and 9 thousand more seats seems good for a team like the packers. Thats more revenue, and players need to understand that the cap is there for a reason, and it's not to hurt them.

Will be interesting how this plays out - there is still time to sort it out so there is football next year, but the big deal is $. We are almost at the point of not being profitable, even though every season we are making more money. There needs to be a cap, and the nfl has to use shared revenue to help pay those salaries, or teams like the packers are done, and there will be even less jobs available for football players.

It's just interesting looking at the numbers, since publicly the packers are the only team we are going to see these numbers from.

Something isn't quite "right" with the numbers.

The NFL has a cap and the players are guaranteed a certain %. Revenues have increased 4% and salaries 15% over the previous year.

So that leads me to 2 possibly conclusions.
1. The Packers revenue isn't growing as fast as other teams revenues.
2. The % of the total revenue isn't being reported correctly and therefore the players "pool" to be paid out of isn't correct calculated. (This would follow the players arguement that they need to see all of the teams books.)

That is my 30 second analysis on the 6 or 7 hard numbers given in the article.

Actually, if you recall, the packers have been purposely, under TT, staying a good 20mil or so under the cap. I think TT knew issues with the bargaining agreement were coming nad was planning ahead with keeping the cap low.

This also explains how the cap increased only 4%, but the packers player salaries increased 15%. Thats because we spent more of the cap space we had compared to just years prior. Barnett extension, Harris Extension, Rodgers big contract, Collins, etc etc. We have been slowly spending more and more of that cap space, which I think explains the difference.

[ThunderDan]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AqryLWSURsynpV3n_iAsGQlDubYF?slug=ap-packers-financials

All the more reason something needs to happen with this agreement. Forget the holdout - the packers are still one of the top dollar teams in terms of revenue in the NFL, and were almost at the point of not being profitable anymore due mostly to player salary.

We always knew this - thing such as if we lose NFL revenue or there is no cap, we don't ahve enough money to stay competitive for long. (about 130 mill put away).

In cases like this, 2 extra games a year and 9 thousand more seats seems good for a team like the packers. Thats more revenue, and players need to understand that the cap is there for a reason, and it's not to hurt them.

Will be interesting how this plays out - there is still time to sort it out so there is football next year, but the big deal is $. We are almost at the point of not being profitable, even though every season we are making more money. There needs to be a cap, and the nfl has to use shared revenue to help pay those salaries, or teams like the packers are done, and there will be even less jobs available for football players.

It's just interesting looking at the numbers, since publicly the packers are the only team we are going to see these numbers from.

Something isn't quite "right" with the numbers.

The NFL has a cap and the players are guaranteed a certain %. Revenues have increased 4% and salaries 15% over the previous year.

So that leads me to 2 possibly conclusions.
1. The Packers revenue isn't growing as fast as other teams revenues.
2. The % of the total revenue isn't being reported correctly and therefore the players "pool" to be paid out of isn't correct calculated. (This would follow the players arguement that they need to see all of the teams books.)

That is my 30 second analysis on the 6 or 7 hard numbers given in the article.

Actually, if you recall, the packers have been purposely, under TT, staying a good 20mil or so under the cap. I think TT knew issues with the bargaining agreement were coming nad was planning ahead with keeping the cap low.

This also explains how the cap increased only 4%, but the packers player salaries increased 15%. Thats because we spent more of the cap space we had compared to just years prior. Barnett extension, Harris Extension, Rodgers big contract, Collins, etc etc. We have been slowly spending more and more of that cap space, which I think explains the difference.

I'm pretty sure $161 million is over 2009's salary cap. I know with bonuses and guaranteed money the number is usually higher but as a % of total revenue it needs to be in a small range.

[Scott Campbell]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AqryLWSURsynpV3n_iAsGQlDubYF?slug=ap-packers-financials

All the more reason something needs to happen with this agreement. Forget the holdout - the packers are still one of the top dollar teams in terms of revenue in the NFL, and were almost at the point of not being profitable anymore due mostly to player salary.

We always knew this - thing such as if we lose NFL revenue or there is no cap, we don't ahve enough money to stay competitive for long. (about 130 mill put away).

In cases like this, 2 extra games a year and 9 thousand more seats seems good for a team like the packers. Thats more revenue, and players need to understand that the cap is there for a reason, and it's not to hurt them.

Will be interesting how this plays out - there is still time to sort it out so there is football next year, but the big deal is $. We are almost at the point of not being profitable, even though every season we are making more money. There needs to be a cap, and the nfl has to use shared revenue to help pay those salaries, or teams like the packers are done, and there will be even less jobs available for football players.

It's just interesting looking at the numbers, since publicly the packers are the only team we are going to see these numbers from.

Something isn't quite "right" with the numbers.

The NFL has a cap and the players are guaranteed a certain %. Revenues have increased 4% and salaries 15% over the previous year.

So that leads me to 2 possibly conclusions.
1. The Packers revenue isn't growing as fast as other teams revenues.
2. The % of the total revenue isn't being reported correctly and therefore the players "pool" to be paid out of isn't correct calculated. (This would follow the players arguement that they need to see all of the teams books.)

That is my 30 second analysis on the 6 or 7 hard numbers given in the article.


The cap number isn't tied to all sources of revenue.

[sharpe1027]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AqryLWSURsynpV3n_iAsGQlDubYF?slug=ap-packers-financials

All the more reason something needs to happen with this agreement. Forget the holdout - the packers are still one of the top dollar teams in terms of revenue in the NFL, and were almost at the point of not being profitable anymore due mostly to player salary.

We always knew this - thing such as if we lose NFL revenue or there is no cap, we don't ahve enough money to stay competitive for long. (about 130 mill put away).

In cases like this, 2 extra games a year and 9 thousand more seats seems good for a team like the packers. Thats more revenue, and players need to understand that the cap is there for a reason, and it's not to hurt them.

Will be interesting how this plays out - there is still time to sort it out so there is football next year, but the big deal is $. We are almost at the point of not being profitable, even though every season we are making more money. There needs to be a cap, and the nfl has to use shared revenue to help pay those salaries, or teams like the packers are done, and there will be even less jobs available for football players.

It's just interesting looking at the numbers, since publicly the packers are the only team we are going to see these numbers from.

Something isn't quite "right" with the numbers.

The NFL has a cap and the players are guaranteed a certain %. Revenues have increased 4% and salaries 15% over the previous year.

So that leads me to 2 possibly conclusions.
1. The Packers revenue isn't growing as fast as other teams revenues.
2. The % of the total revenue isn't being reported correctly and therefore the players "pool" to be paid out of isn't correct calculated. (This would follow the players arguement that they need to see all of the teams books.)

That is my 30 second analysis on the 6 or 7 hard numbers given in the article.


The cap number isn't tied to all sources of revenue.

Also, I think that the cap number is also calculated based upon the previous year, so it always lags behind one year, and it doesn't sound like they shifted the results to account for that.

[ThunderDan]

From fanhouse:

As the NFL's only publicly owned team, the Green Bay Packers are the one franchise that has to open its books to the public. And at a time of labor strife, with the NFL players' union calling for the league -- and the league refusing -- to provide audited financial statements for all 32 teams, this particular book-opening gets plenty of attention.

The Packers say player salaries are rising at twice the rate that revenue is rising. Astute observers ask how that's possible, since the NFL's salary cap is computed as a fixed percentage of league revenues. The reaction to Wednesday's news illustrates the width of the chasm between the NFL's perception of the problems at the heart of the current CBA dispute and the NFLPA's perception.
What you didn't see Wednesday was either side -- the NFL or the NFLPA -- rushing to ascribe broader meaning to the Packer numbers. And you won't. The union won't publicly assume that the Packers' finances reflect those of the other 31 teams, because to do so would undermine its argument that it needs those teams' audited financial statements in order to negotiate. And the league won't claim that the Packers' finances reflect those of the other 31 teams, because to do so would be to invite the union to say "Prove it."

[pbmax]

Since the recession, the Packers local revenues are close to stagnant. And actual cash outlays for player costs (not just player salaries, which is different) is always different year to year than the teams's salary cap number. Additionally, its possible that player costs on the balance sheet also include benefits (retirement, pension, health care) that are not tabulated in the player contracts.

But think of the argument this way. If the Packers are still profitable in the worst consumer and business climate in 30 years (or more), exactly what is wrong with the business model? :lol:

[Merlin]

I guess we will know after this season because at the rates they are claiming, they should lose money this year. If they don't then something isn't right with the numbers. I know the total cost to have any employee is far greater than their salaries and those costs probably did go up a lot when the economy hit the skids.