Packers Pep Rally

[b bulldog]

January 11, 6-9pm, in Lambeau in the north endzone stands. 10,000 tickets sold very quickly so the team opened up an additional 5000 tickets today. This will be broadcast on WTMJ and WFRV, Channel 5, live! Win packers stuff, see some greats and be in the mecca of football stadiums :wave:

[packinpatland]

How do us 'out of towners' get to watch?

[b bulldog]

I know it will be broadcast live on WTMJ, newsradio 620wtmj.com, other than that, I hAVe no idea but I'm sure others in here will be able to help.

[Deputy Nutz]

Are they gonna hang the opposing coach in effigy?

[MJZiggy]

Are they gonna hang the opposing coach in effigy?

They'll do that during the game...

[coolman3]

WTF??? This is the NFL, not high school or college. Prep rallies are unnecessary and distracting !!! I hope no current Packer is forced to show up.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I wonder if they will show it on the NFL Network.

[orbindale65]

i'm sure some of it will be on youtube.

they will probably sell as many 5000 seat blocks as they can. wouldn't surprise me if they sold the place out. and i'm sure some, if not all the players will show. what a blast for them. like family night. the ultimate Packer preseason game, Packers vs. Packers.

and to think tampa might not sell out their game!! ha

[packinpatland]

WTF??? This is the NFL, not high school or college. Prep rallies are unnecessary and distracting !!! I hope no current Packer is forced to show up.

This coming from a guy who won't spend $450 on two.....not one......but two tickets to a playoff game?????

I'm with you orbindale65...........what a blast it would be!

[Scott Campbell]

WTF??? This is the NFL, not high school or college.


Yeah, well this is Green Bay, not New York City.

[coolman3]

WTF??? This is the NFL, not high school or college.


Yeah, well this is Green Bay, not New York City.

NFL players don't need cheerleaders jumping up and down shouting rah rah crap, nor do they need to hear old women sing crappy fight songs. They are motivated enough.

This is the NFL. Not college. Or high school.

[MJZiggy]

You're saying this about the only team in the NFL without half-naked cheerleaders dancing around every home game...

[BallHawk]

You're saying this about the only team in the NFL without half-naked cheerleaders dancing around every home game...

There's a good reason for that...... :shock:

[packinpatland]

WTF??? This is the NFL, not high school or college.


Yeah, well this is Green Bay, not New York City.

NFL players don't need cheerleaders jumping up and down shouting rah rah crap, nor do they need to hear old women sing crappy fight songs. They are motivated enough.

This is the NFL. Not college. Or high school.

Then why bother to even have fans in the bleachers? There are times that '12th man' counts.

Come on...........you're to young to be acting so old :wink: ...............

[Scott Campbell]

NFL players don't need cheerleaders jumping up and down shouting rah rah crap, nor do they need to hear old women sing crappy fight songs. They are motivated enough.

This is the NFL. Not college. Or high school.



You do realize that a pep rally is for the fans, not the players.

[packinpatland]

You're saying this about the only team in the NFL without half-naked cheerleaders dancing around every home game...

There's a good reason for that...... :shock:

It gets just as cold in NE, Buffalo, NY...............now those are REAL women!

[coolman3]

You're saying this about the only team in the NFL without half-naked cheerleaders dancing around every home game...

Pep rally is not a NFL thing. The Packers are probably the first team in NFL history to hold a prep rally.

[Scott Campbell]

You're saying this about the only team in the NFL without half-naked cheerleaders dancing around every home game...

Pep rally is not a NFL thing. The Packer are probably the first team in NFL history to hold a prep rally.


Would you feel better about it if there were free bong hits for everyone attending?

[coolman3]

NFL players don't need cheerleaders jumping up and down shouting rah rah crap, nor do they need to hear old women sing crappy fight songs. They are motivated enough.

This is the NFL. Not college. Or high school.



You do realize that a pep rally is for the fans, not the players.

Well, as long as none of the current players show up, I am fine with it.

Heck, I might even buy by a couple of tixs, resell it on Ebay for a profit, and then use that profit to buy those playoffs tixs!

[packinpatland]

You're saying this about the only team in the NFL without half-naked cheerleaders dancing around every home game...

Prep rally is not a NFL thing. The Packer are probably the first team in NFL history to hold a prep rally.

I agree... a Prep (that would probably be for some elite east coast, blazer-wearing get'um ready for college school) rally is not an NFL thing............. but we're talking the Green Bay Packers here.
We're talking a team owned by the people, not some corporation or some billionare. A team where the players ride kids bikes during training season, fans that come shovel the stadium, wear cheese on their heads, a team that has the greatest fan base in the NFL.
So why NOT have a PEP rally.................
Scott is right.........it's for the fans...............and maybe the players too. :cow:

[Deputy Nutz]

I think players in Green Bay appreciate the gesture by the franchise and the fans. 15 thousand people are going to show up for a pep rally, that is pretty neat and some players will show up on their own accord because they still enjoy that sort of thing, they probably liked it in high school, and in college, why not in the pros? because the get paid?

[Joemailman]

Actually, it's a good way to get a few thousand more people into the Packer Pro Shop. Nothing wrong with that!

[coolman3]

I agree... a Prep (that would probably be for some elite east coast, blazer-wearing get'um ready for college school) rally is not an NFL thing............. but we're talking the Green Bay Packers here.
We're talking a team owned by the people, not some corporation or some billionare. A team where the players ride kids bikes during training season, fans that come shovel the stadium, wear cheese on their heads, a team that has the greatest fan base in the NFL.
So why NOT have a PEP rally.................
Scott is right.........it's for the fans...............and maybe the players too. :cow:

Family Night is enough of a "pep" rally for me.

Despite having "many owners," the Packers still would NOT be able to survive without the NFL's quasi-social revenue sharing system.

[MJZiggy]

Packers may be in the smallest market, but for some odd reason (can you say rabid fanbase?) they are one of the more profitable teams in the league.

[esoxx]

I'm with Tank on this one. Lame idea.

Sitting/standing in the frigid night air for three hours chanting and clapping seems stupid. However, if that's your idea of a good time, have fun.

[Deputy Nutz]

I'm with Tank on this one. Lame idea.

Sitting/standing in the frigid night air for three hours chanting and clapping seems stupid. However, if that's your idea of a good time, have fun.

If they had a big ass fire I would be down, but I am not saying I am going to be one of those poor frozen souls standing out there having my Packer flag.

[coolman3]

Packers may be in the smallest market, but for some odd reason (can you say rabid fanbase?) they are one of the more profitable teams in the league.

Having a national-wide, perhaps even world-wide, "rabid fan base" has nothing to do with the profitability of the Packers. Most Packer merchandieses and apparels are licenced to Rebook, which means that any revenue generated from such sals are automatically shared throughout the league. In other words, the Houston Texans also benefit from the sale of Packer merchandieses and apparels.

What really determines the profitability of a team is local revenue, that is revenue from luxury box sales, concession sales, local media contracts, etc. The Packers are currently one of the higher ranked team in term of profits due in large part to the renovation of Lambeau field. The Colts last year, despite winning the Super Bowl, operated at a net loss because they played in the obsoleted RCA dome.

Of course, all teams--regardless of market size or stadium power--are able to get by (and therefore survive) because of the sharing system that includes billion dollars national tv contracts.

[BallHawk]

I don't see the harm in doing it. I'm sure some players will get a kick out of it.

Of course, the people of Washington D.C. must do it differently.........

[MadtownPacker]

What really determines the profitability of a team is local revenue, that is revenue from luxury box sales, concession sales, local media contracts, etc. The Packers are currently one of the higher ranked team in term of profits due in large part to the renovation of Lambeau field. The Colts last year, despite winning the Super Bowl, operated at a net loss because they played in the obsoleted RCA dome.Well based on your little argument the Packers need every penny they can get. I guess that is why they are doing this. To avoiding going broke huh?

[coolman3]

What really determines the profitability of a team is local revenue, that is revenue from luxury box sales, concession sales, local media contracts, etc. The Packers are currently one of the higher ranked team in term of profits due in large part to the renovation of Lambeau field. The Colts last year, despite winning the Super Bowl, operated at a net loss because they played in the obsoleted RCA dome.Well based on your little argument the Packers need every penny they can get. I guess that is why they are doing this. To avoiding going broke huh?

I also wrote: "Of course, all teams--regardless of market size or stadium power--are able to get by (and therefore survive) because of the sharing system that includes billion dollar national tv contracts."

Can't go broke with billion dollars TV contracts.

[Tarlam!]

Considering we have the youngest team in the league, this should make the players feel at home.

[MJZiggy]

So it IS Tank!! Look up the financial info before you go making claims there dude...The Packers have 80 million dollars in reserves, sell out it's skyboxes, and a good chunk of the local rabid fanbase not to mention the millions of tourists buy their stuff at the Packer Pro Shop...and what do we know about THOSE sales Mr. Econ Major?

[Scott Campbell]

So it IS Tank!!



Thank you Inspector Clouseau.

http://www.matthewlangley.com/blog/uploaded_images/pantera_rosa1-792371.jpg

[MJZiggy]

I don't like to judge prematurely...benefit of the doubt and all that crap.

[Scott Campbell]

I don't like to judge prematurely...benefit of the doubt and all that crap.



...was just teasin...

:P

[Zool]

Items sold in Packer Pro shops do not go into the revenue pool. Items sold on NFL.com for example, do go in.

Buy from the pro shops people.

[coolman3]

So it IS Tank!! Look up the financial info before you go making claims there dude...The Packers have 80 million dollars in reserves, sell out it's skyboxes, and a good chunk of the local rabid fanbase not to mention the millions of tourists buy their stuff at the Packer Pro Shop...and what do we know about THOSE sales Mr. Econ Major?

MJ, all NFL teams have two sources of income: Defined gross revenues (shared) such as major licensing and sponsorship deals, national media contracts (TV, radio), gate receipts and merchandising sales, etc.; and excluded gross revenues (unshared) such as stadium naming rights, luxury boxes, concession sales, and local sponsorships deals, etc.

Revenues from the Packer Pro Shop is also shared since Reebok is the official licensee of all NFL merchandises and apparels, including the Packers. Except for some locally made miscellaneous items, sales of every Favre and Driver jersey sold at the Pro Shop are shared equally among the 32 teams.

Why is the Packer one of the more profitable teams? As noted above, the renovated Lambeau is the main reason why. Prior to the renovation, tourists did not impact the Packer much (aside from proceeds from the Hall of Fame) because Lambeau was closed in the off season (although they did have an impact on the Green Bay economy). Now the Packers are able to generate additional local revenues year round from sales in the Atrium.

But without the revenue sharing system, the Packer simply would not be able to compete with large market teams such as Dallas and Washington, Atrium or not. The NFL gives each team $100+ mil per year to cover football related expenses. Without it, it is unlikely the Packer would be able cover the salary cap floor of 56%, year after year with only local revenues.

[MJZiggy]

Check the Packers Financial Statement, Tank, some teams suck money out of the revenue sharing system, some pay in. Guess which the Packers do. And Reebok has absolutely nothing to do with shared revenue. Reebok simply makes money for producing the merchandise and I can assure you, they share those profits with no one.

[coolman3]

Items sold in Packer Pro shops do not go into the revenue pool. Items sold on NFL.com for example, do go in.

Buy from the pro shops people.

You sure?

[MJZiggy]

Items sold in Packer Pro shops do not go into the revenue pool. Items sold on NFL.com for example, do go in.

Buy from the pro shops people.

You sure?

Yes.

[coolman3]

And Reebok has absolutely nothing to do with shared revenue. Reebok simply makes money for producing the merchandise and I can assure you, they share those profits with no one.

Check your facts again. The NFL has centralized its branding, and therefore, has given Reebox the licencing rights to all NFL merchandises and apparel. Sales of Favre jerseys benefit the Titans as much as the Packers.

[FavreChild]

No, the individual retail sales are not shared. That's why the Lambeau Field Atrium is the envy of every franchise, and why other teams are trying to model their stadium renovations after ours - it makes money!!

Here's a basic breakdown of what is shared revenue and what is not:

http://football.calsci.com/SalaryCap.html

[FavreChild]

From Packers.com:

The Packers Pro Shop and PackersProShop.com are the only shopping locations where the Packers organization inherits all sales revenue. Revenue from Packers merchandise sold elsewhere - your local mall, for example - is shared by the entire league. In other words: Buy from the Pro Shop, help the Packers win. Buy anywhere else, help the Chicago Bears win, too.

http://www.packers.com/fan_zone/faq/

[coolman3]

Items sold in Packer Pro shops do not go into the revenue pool. Items sold on NFL.com for example, do go in.

Buy from the pro shops people.

You sure?

Yes.

Go read this book: Tailgating, Sacks, and Salary Caps: How the NFL Become the Most Successful Sports League in History, by Mark Yost.

I used it as a source in my the Economic thesis paper.

Previously, teams were free to market their products to any company they chose. For example, Dallas wore jersey made by Nike, whereas Green Bay wore jerseys made by Adidas.

According to Yost, the NFL has reformed their marketing strategy, and centralized their products. Reebox is now the official licensee of NFL merchandises and apparels, which and proceeds are shared equally among all 32 teams.

[FavreChild]

Again:

"The Packers Pro Shop and PackersProShop.com are the only shopping locations where the Packers organization inherits all sales revenue."

[coolman3]

From Packers.com:

The Packers Pro Shop and PackersProShop.com are the only shopping locations where the Packers organization inherits all sales revenue. Revenue from Packers merchandise sold elsewhere - your local mall, for example - is shared by the entire league. In other words: Buy from the Pro Shop, help the Packers win. Buy anywhere else, help the Chicago Bears win, too.

http://www.packers.com/fan_zone/faq/

Oh.

[MadtownPacker]

Whats FC? Where you been at playette?

Dont waste your time arguing with ole polar-pendejo there, his game is always arguing without merit.

[coolman3]

Again:

"The Packers Pro Shop and PackersProShop.com are the only shopping locations where the Packers organization inherits all sales revenue."

Yes, but that alone would not save the Packers without the revenue sharing system.

[FavreChild]

You are right about the NFL doing a lot of collaborative marketing - but it is also correct that one of the reasons the smallest market team (us) ranks near the top ten in team revenue is because of the pro shop sales.

By the way, why the hell is my rat name still "Allie Rat?"

[Scott Campbell]

I used it as a source in my the Economic thesis paper.



You actually write your own papers now? Gotta admit, you've come a long way since Greenspan.

[FavreChild]

Whats FC? Where you been at playette?

Dont waste your time arguing with ole polar-pendejo there, his game is always arguing without merit.

It is my duty to post the facts - now I'm done with it.

:mrgreen:

[coolman3]

Under the new collective bargaining agreement, each team must spend at least 56% of the salary cap on players. Suppose that the salary cap is $107 mil; that means that the Packers must spend at least $59.92 mil on player salaries.

I don't think the Pack can generate $59.92 mil per year solely on local revenues. Market is not big enough.

[MJZiggy]

I used it as a source in my the Economic thesis paper.



You actually write your own papers now? Gotta admit, you've come a long way since Greenspan.

Scott, you know undergrads don't write theses.

Sincerely,
Inspector Clouseau

[coolman3]

I used it as a source in my the Economic thesis paper.



You actually write your own papers now? Gotta admit, you've come a long way since Greenspan.

Scott, you know undergrads don't write theses.

Sincerely,
Inspector Clouseau

Economics majors do though. Its part of a research course.

[FavreChild]

Aren't you required to use current and/or accurate sources??

:wink:

[MadtownPacker]

If the Packers need help with $$$ they can always steal one of their dad's credit cards.

[Scott Campbell]

Under the new collective bargaining agreement, each team must spend at least 56% of the salary cap on players. Suppose that the salary cap is $107 mil; that means that the Packers must spend at least $59.92 mil on player salaries.

I don't think the Pack can generate $59.92 mil per year solely on local revenues. Market is not big enough.


It's not 56% - the minimum is 84% of the salary cap. I think the salary cap is set at 59.5% of total football revenues.

[Scott Campbell]

I used it as a source in my the Economic thesis paper.



You actually write your own papers now? Gotta admit, you've come a long way since Greenspan.

Scott, you know undergrads don't write theses.

Sincerely,
Inspector Clouseau


Sorry - I went to a cheap in state school.

[Scott Campbell]

Aren't you required to use current and/or accurate sources??

:wink:


At Georgetown - yes.
At Stevens Point - not so much.

[MJZiggy]

Under the new collective bargaining agreement, each team must spend at least 56% of the salary cap on players. Suppose that the salary cap is $107 mil; that means that the Packers must spend at least $59.92 mil on player salaries.

I don't think the Pack can generate $59.92 mil per year solely on local revenues. Market is not big enough.


It's not 56% - the minimum is 84% of the salary cap. I think the salary cap is set at 59.5% of total football revenues.

Wow. You been taking lessons from Patler?

[Scott Campbell]

Again:

"The Packers Pro Shop and PackersProShop.com are the only shopping locations where the Packers organization inherits all sales revenue."

Yes, but that alone would not save the Packers without the revenue sharing system.


That is true. Though nobody has argued that it wasn't.

And it's also why Major League Baseball is such a stinking mess. Though it shouldn't take Bud Selig long to fix it.

[Scott Campbell]

Wow. You been taking lessons from Patler?


I'm just a hack compared to that dude.

[coolman3]

It's not 56% - the minimum is 84% of the salary cap. I think the salary cap is set at 59.5% of total football revenues.

Where's your source?

From my paper: Yost (2006) reported that the salary floor for the most current CPA is set at 56% (p. 27).

You can check it out if you want. :)

[Scott Campbell]

Where's your source?


I was hoping you'd ask me that - it's the NFL Players Association. :shock:


http://www.nflpa.org/Faqs/NFLPA_Faqs.aspx#13

[coolman3]

Where's your source?


I was hoping you'd ask me that - it's the NFL Players Association. :shock:


http://www.nflpa.org/Faqs/NFLPA_Faqs.aspx#13

Paste your numbers here for me please.

[coolman3]

Players are to recieve 59.5% of the NFL's total revenues. That determines the salary cap. Teams at spend least 56% (cap floor) of the salay cap on players.

[Scott Campbell]

The operative sentence:

"Meanwhile, individual clubs have to spend at least 84% of the Salary Cap on player salaries and benefits each year....."




"What's behind the NFL Salary Cap?
In return for agreeing to free agency, the owners got a Salary Cap which was first implemented in 1994. The Salary Cap is essentially equal to 60% of Total Revenues and includes both player salaries and benefits. Prior to 1993, NFL players historically received an average of about 40 to 50% of the league's revenues in salaries and benefits. Under the current Collective Bargaining Agreement, however, players are guaranteed a minimum of 50% of Total Revenues at least through 2009. This is perhaps the greatest benefit achieved in the CBA.

Top


How does the Salary Cap operate?
CBA rules concerning signing bonuses and renegotiation rights allow total club expenditures to exceed the cap in any given season. The main reason for this is that under CBA rules all signing bonuses are allocated equally over the years of the player's contract. For example, suppose a player signed a four-year contract in 2006 for $1 million per year, plus a $2 million signing bonus. Even though the player received $3 million in the first year ($2 million signing bonus plus $1 million in salary), only $1.5 million counted against the cap that year.

Top


How is the cap adjusted?
The free agency/cap system has built-in protections for players assuring that various dollar amounts for minimum salaries and tenders will increase along with league revenues during the term of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Since gate revenues increase each year along with built-in increases in network TV contracts, there is a higher cap each year. Meanwhile, individual clubs have to spend at least 84% of the Salary Cap on player salaries and benefits each year, and the clubs as a group have to average over 50% to be in compliance with the CBA rules."

[FavreChild]

A primary source that is up-to-date!?? Scott, that's practically cheating!! :wink:

[GrnBay007]

Wow, the Packers are having a Pep Rally.........cool!! Been a few years since I've been to a Pep Rally.

[BallHawk]

Wow, the Packers are having a Pep Rally.........cool!! Been a few years since I've been to a Pep Rally.

Stop being on topic, 007. :wink:

[GrnBay007]

Stop being on topic, 007. :wink:

:twisted:

[Scott Campbell]

Players are to recieve 59.5% of the NFL's total revenues. That determines the salary cap. Teams at spend least 56% (cap floor) of the salay cap on players.


I think you've mis-stated how it works. The 59.5% is the number used to calculate the salary cap - total revenue divided by 32 teams times .595), which is not necessarily what the players will receive. The minimum the players receive is 84% of the salary cap (same as 50% of the total revenue). So what the players receive appears to be somewhere between 50% and 59.%% of total revenue - depending on how much leftover cap space the teams have on average. My guess is that the number is much closer to 60 than 50.

[MJZiggy]

Players are to recieve 59.5% of the NFL's total revenues. That determines the salary cap. Teams at spend least 56% (cap floor) of the salay cap on players.


I think you've mis-stated how it works. The 59.5% is the number used to calculate the salary cap - total revenue divided by 32 teams times .595), which is not necessarily what the players will receive. The minimum the players receive is 84% of the salary cap (same as 50% of the total revenue). So what the players receive appears to be somewhere between 50% and 59.%% of total revenue - depending on how much leftover cap space the teams have on average. My guess is that the number is much closer to 60 than 50.

Scott, doesn't that assessment suggest that most teams are sitting at the salary cap floor? I would think most are closer to the ceiling and that anything much less than 60% might be a tad conservative (or am I misunderstanding what you're saying?)

[the_idle_threat]

I used it as a source in my the Economic thesis paper.



You actually write your own papers now? Gotta admit, you've come a long way since Greenspan.

Scott, you know undergrads don't write theses.

Sincerely,
Inspector Clouseau

Well, Inspector :P , I wrote a thesis for my undergrad degree. It wasn't required for graduation; only required if I wanted to graduate with honors and cum laude/magna/summa.

[MJZiggy]

Are you seriously suggesting to me that Tank falls into that category of student?

[coolman3]

Players are to recieve 59.5% of the NFL's total revenues. That determines the salary cap. Teams at spend least 56% (cap floor) of the salay cap on players.


I think you've mis-stated how it works. The 59.5% is the number used to calculate the salary cap - total revenue divided by 32 teams times .595), which is not necessarily what the players will receive. The minimum the players receive is 84% of the salary cap (same as 50% of the total revenue). So what the players receive appears to be somewhere between 50% and 59.%% of total revenue - depending on how much leftover cap space the teams have on average. My guess is that the number is much closer to 60 than 50.

I may have miscalculated the floor for each individual team, but was right about "clubs as a group have to average over 50%" (teams have to spend at least 56% of the salary cap on players).

Luckily I was speaking about the NFL as whole in my 28 pages long paper. Got an A. :)

[Zool]

I'm sure. Do you EVER take anyone at something they say, or do you always need to be proven wrong?

[Scott Campbell]

Luckily I was speaking about the NFL as whole in my 28 pages long paper. Got an A. :)



Luckily I'm not your professor. It took me 5 minutes of ghetto research to debunk the numbers in your 28 page thesis.

[Scott Campbell]

Scott, doesn't that assessment suggest that most teams are sitting at the salary cap floor? I would think most are closer to the ceiling and that anything much less than 60% might be a tad conservative (or am I misunderstanding what you're saying?)


I probably wasn't clear. I'm suggesting that the actual percentage of total revenue paid to players is probably closer to 60 becasue most teams use up their cap space.

[MJZiggy]

Thanks, Scott. BTW, Tank, my ex now goes to Georgetown. Which professor gave you an A on a paper? I need to know who to make fun of...

[Zool]

So when its all over for the year. Take away operating costs and staff. Are the owners really pulling down that much every year? In the neighborhood of $30mil average?

The old saying holds true. It takes money to make money.

[Scott Campbell]

So when its all over for the year. Take away operating costs and staff. Are the owners really pulling down that much every year? In the neighborhood of $30mil average?

The old saying holds true. It takes money to make money.


I don't think so. The owners have to pay for all the other operating costs out of their cut of the total revenue.

[coolman3]

Luckily I was speaking about the NFL as whole in my 28 pages long paper. Got an A. :)



Luckily I'm not your professor. It took me 5 minutes of ghetto research to debunk the numbers in your 28 page thesis.

My paper wasn't on the revenue sharing system. I only used it in the background discussion. The majority of the paper is about winning in the NFL and variables that affect it. Basically, I gathered a bunch of data and then analyze them to see if they impact winning.

According to my one of my regression model, scoring a lot of points win a lot of games. :wink:

[Scott Campbell]

Thanks, Scott. BTW, Tank, my ex now goes to Georgetown. Which professor gave you an A on a paper? I need to know who to make fun of...


It appears that Georgetown may have been a part of Tank's act. I'm not sure he ever went there. I think I read that he goes to UW Stevens Point.

[MJZiggy]

Are stadium operating services paid for by the team or by the stadium authority (the city)?

[the_idle_threat]

Are you seriously suggesting to me that Tank falls into that category of student?

touche'

[Scott Campbell]

According to my one of my regression model, scoring a lot of points win a lot of games. :wink:



Whoa - groundbreaking stuff! :lol:

[Zool]

Lets just set the cap at 60% of total revenue.

$5,120,000,000 would be 60% of that total
~$3.5b would be for everything else.

$110,000,000 would be per teams portion of non salaries to divide up.

An $80mil operating cost would still net them $30mil each per season.

Most teams lease the stadium and land.
In 2003 the Vikes were paying $5.5mil/season for the Dome.

2003 Article (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/news/2003/06/22/vikings_metrodome_ap)

Still researching for curiosity.

Seahawks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qwest_Field) sold the naming rights to their field for $5mil/season.

[coolman3]

"Meanwhile, individual clubs have to spend at least 84% of the Salary Cap on player salaries and benefits each year"

So Campbell, does your source say anything about making adjustments, or is 84% a constant figure??

Apparently I am not the only one confused. The sportsbusinessraido.com: "The 2006 NFL salary cap (the year of the new cba) was approximately $102 million dollars per team, while the salary floor was roughly $75 million per team."

If the cap floor is 84%, shouldn't the figure be about $86 mil, and not $75 mil?

[Scott Campbell]

Apparently I am not the only one confused.



True, but you are more confused than most.

I'm not sure about that site. Wasn't the CBA renegotiated sometime last year? The deal was struck between the owners and the NFLPA. Seeing that they were party to the deal, I have a hard time believing there is a more credible source out there than the NFLPA.

I think the entire document is on their site. But I'm done doing research for the day.

[coolman3]

Apparently the folks at ehow.com are confused too: "Understand that there is a minimum salary cap floor for each team. This figure is 75 percent of the salary cap for a given year. In 2007 this figure will be $81.75 million. Which is 75 percent of the $109 million salary cap. No NFL team can spend less than this amount on player salaries."

[Scott Campbell]

Apparently the folks at ehow.com are confused too: "Understand that there is a minimum salary cap floor for each team. This figure is 75 percent of the salary cap for a given year. In 2007 this figure will be $81.75 million. Which is 75 percent of the $109 million salary cap. No NFL team can spend less than this amount on player salaries."



Lets assume this is correct for a moment. This latest research shows your thesis numbers wrong too. Shouldn't you have done this before you turned in the paper?

[coolman3]

Apparently the folks at ehow.com are confused too: "Understand that there is a minimum salary cap floor for each team. This figure is 75 percent of the salary cap for a given year. In 2007 this figure will be $81.75 million. Which is 75 percent of the $109 million salary cap. No NFL team can spend less than this amount on player salaries."



Lets assume this is correct for a moment. This latest research shows your thesis numbers wrong too. Shouldn't you have done this before you turned in the paper?

Call it dumb luck if you like, but I was speaking about the NFL as whole in my paper, and not individual teams. :)

[Bossman641]

Is there a Minimum Salary?

Answer: Yep. Under the new CBA, the players are guaranteed 50% of Leaguewide Total Revenues. In the event that player costs are less that 50% of Total Revenues, then, on or before April 15 of the next League Year, the NFL shall pay an amount equal to such deficiency directly to the players.

More specifically, beginning in 2006 each team had to pay a guaranteed Minimum Team Salary of 84% of the Salary Cap. Each year that percentage goes up by 1.2%, which means that it is 85.2% this season. However, the Minimum Team Salary cannot extend beyond 90% of the Salary Cap. Any shortfall in the Minimum Team Salary at the end of a league year has to be paid, on or before April 15 of the next league year, by the team(s) having such shortfall, directly to the players who were on that team's roster at any time during the season.

Now you know why some of the smaller market owners had issues with the new CBA!

[coolman3]

Is there a Minimum Salary?

More specifically, beginning in 2006 each team had to pay a guaranteed Minimum Team Salary of 84% of the Salary Cap. Each year that percentage goes up by 1.2%, which means that it is 85.2% this season.

Gregg Easterbrook of ESPN.com: This year (2006) the floor is 84 percent of $102 million, meaning teams must spend a minimum of $86 million on players -- and $86 million was last year's maximum! Next year the salary cap floor will be 90 percent of $109 million, mandating teams spend at least $98 million on players.

[The Leaper]

Now you know why some of the smaller market owners had issues with the new CBA!

Not really.

The NFL TV revenue is shared...and to maximize revenue, you need teams to spend money on players and get fans excited.

Players are the ones who make the league profitable, not a bunch of fat suits sitting in luxury boxes. They deserve to get their fair share of the revenue...and not have some rich owner sit on a pile of money and not actively try to improve his team, like many MLB teams do.

I don't see why a small market team would mind this as long as TV revenues remain shared and larger than the cost of salaries. If an owner wants to cut costs, he can do it plenty of other areas outside of player salaries.

Green Bay gets $125M a year from the shared TV deal money. By this agreement, they only have to pay $86M in salaries at this time...and it won't grow to a point that will exceed the TV revenues.

[Scott Campbell]

Players are the ones who make the league profitable, not a bunch of fat suits sitting in luxury boxes.


Why the anger towards the "fat suits"? They, along with the players and the networks are all responsible for bringing the entertainment into our homes.

[Bossman641]

Now you know why some of the smaller market owners had issues with the new CBA!

Not really.

The NFL TV revenue is shared...and to maximize revenue, you need teams to spend money on players and get fans excited.

Players are the ones who make the league profitable, not a bunch of fat suits sitting in luxury boxes. They deserve to get their fair share of the revenue...and not have some rich owner sit on a pile of money and not actively try to improve his team, like many MLB teams do.

I don't see why a small market team would mind this as long as TV revenues remain shared and larger than the cost of salaries. If an owner wants to cut costs, he can do it plenty of other areas outside of player salaries.

Green Bay gets $125M a year from the shared TV deal money. By this agreement, they only have to pay $86M in salaries at this time...and it won't grow to a point that will exceed the TV revenues.

Not my words, I got that info off a website but I agree with you. I don't think there is much of a problem in the NFL with teams not reaching the minimum cap number, not like in baseball were owners sit on cash.

Probbaly wrong, but I seem to recall only like 1 or 2 teams failing to reach the cap amount last year, cause I'm pretty sure their players received a few hundred or thousand dollars in order to make up the difference.

[The Leaper]

Why the anger towards the "fat suits"?

I'm not angry.

I'm just pointing out that the fat suits aren't the reason we are watching. Fat suits also bring us crap like "Cavemen". Should we be grateful to them for that as well?

The Packers don't have a fat suit, and things seem to be going along just fine. So clearly, the fat suit isn't really all that necessary.

[MJZiggy]

Have fun, gents. Tank, you might want to try quoting THIS reference document if you want the guys to take you seriously...

http://www.nflpa.org/CBA/CBA_Complete.aspx

Don't leave home without it. And don't try to fake it, I have a searchable copy on my hard drive...

[GBRulz]

Sorry to bring back the topic but....

I have some leftover pep rally tickets, PM me if you are interested. Yes, they are free....well, for 99.9% of the people on here anyhow :twisted:

[CaliforniaCheez]

Anyone with a video??

Out of towners missed the live action.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Only 10,000 showed up. That's a lot, but in Green Bay I almost expected more.
:D

I wonder if Mad's last name is Barclay.
:D


http://www.packers.com/news/stories/2008/01/11/1/

My father has been a Packers fan for 42 years. He wrote several letters to Lombardi and coach answered back; the Barclay family have been Packer fans ever since. On Sunday, December 30, 2007, we had the chance to be at Lambeau for the first time in our lives. We'll never forget that moment and we hope to come back soon. Joy tears are still running on our faces...from Mexico with love, Go Pack Go!

Manuel -- Mexico City, Mexico

If you are a foreignor, you are guaranteed to get your entry printed. Two Canadians and a Mexican were posted out of this week's five.

[HarveyWallbangers]

This one is sweet. I wonder how the little guy is doing.

http://www.packers.com/news/stories/2007/12/21/1/


We wanted to go to Lambeau Field and see the Packers, but I was diagnosed with Leukemia in May and was restricted from traveling too far, so we got tickets to the game in St. Louis and passes to go on the field. We gave a gift to a trainer for Brett and a couple minutes later, Brett's security guard came over to us and told us Brett wanted to meet us. Brett came over and took pictures with my sister and I and gave each of us one of his wrist bands. It was an experience we will never forget!

Nathan -- Bloomsdale, Missouri

[GBRulz]

I caught part of this on TV last night when I got home. Frank Winters was there and I had to chuckle a bit because he seemed to forget TT's last name. After a couple of attempts, he settled on Thomason. :lol: