What is a fair profit for an NFL owner?

[Tony Oday]

And where does the rest of the money go? If the total salary comes down to half of their current level, do you think the owners will drop prices?

I would guess you're purposely overstating the salaries as well in an attempt to make a point. They don't make $10 million - a select few do.

A ballpark average salary is pretty easy to figure out if you look at 2009. 59 players count against the cap of $130 million cap gives you $2.2 million/player. But that's too high, subtract the big hitters for 2009:
(source http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/62145597.html)

Aaron Rodgers, QB     $9.653M     
Greg Jennings, WR     $8.149M     
Chad Clifton, T       $8.040M     
Charles Woodson, CB   $7.300M     
Donald Driver, WR     $6.400M     
Aaron Kampman, OLB    $6.005M     
A.J. Hawk, ILB        $5.902M     
Al Harris, CB         $4.775M     
Nick Barnett, ILB     $4.684M     
Ryan Grant, RB        $4.400M

So, top ten earners make $65.44M, leaving $64.6M for the remaining 49 players - or $1.3million per. So given that the average number of wins/year is 8, your plan would actually be a raise for a lot of players.

Still as astronomical sum of money for most of the rest of us, but certainly not $10million per season.

Correct exaggerated for effect.

I know it would be a big increase for most of the NFL. This is Obamanomics at its best! Redistribute the income from all the teams and the "extra" goes partly back into the pockets of owners, partly to the cities that were dumb enough to fund their stadiums and part to retired players. The extra to the owners to be used to loan money to teams to build new stadiums so they stop fleecing us

[Bossman641]

Well said. Its the same in the NBA with the age limit. Its the owners that did not want to risk big money on high schoolers.

god help us if the nfl follows the nba's lead

[Tony Oday]

god help us if the nfl follows the nba's lead

There are NO High Schoolers that can play in the NFL.

[Guiness]

PB;

I agree with all your comments about company value, appreciation, etc. But in many ways that is irrelevant to a situation that will soon arise. At some point in the near future the players will be getting their noses into the teams finances, and will see what the owners have taken out for their own use on a yearly basis. How much the owners have paid themselves. The players should recognize that it is fair for the owners to take some money from ongoing operations. If the owners average $2 million/year, I doubt players will find fault in that. If they find the owners "take" is $100 M/year, I suspect they will scream long and loud that more of that should be given to the players.

It's a very practical issue that will surface soon. It doesn't have to be made more complicated than it is (or will be).

See, that's where I disagree with you, and think that there is no 'magic' number that is acceptable for profit.

I don't think the trouble with opening the books will come from learning one of the owners makes $100million/year. I think it will come from questionable accounting practices, like the ones pbmax and myself brought up earlier...i.e. an owner taking a $100million dollar salary, and putting it in the expense column, instead of the profit column.

I think at much as issue as the division of the revenue/profits is how that number is arrived at.

You could be correct in your other post, of course, that this is all a red hearing, and the players actually want something totally different, like getting rid of the tags, or wholesale changes to FA. I, personally don't think so. I think the root issue is the one stated up front, that the owners are saying the profit margin is too low, and the players don't believe them. After that, it's all egos and grandstanding.

[rbaloha1]

See, that's where I disagree with you, and think that there is no 'magic' number that is acceptable for profit.

I don't think the trouble with opening the books will come from learning one of the owners makes $100million/year. I think it will come from questionable accounting practices, like the ones pbmax and myself brought up earlier...i.e. an owner taking a $100million dollar salary, and putting it in the expense column, instead of the profit column.

I think at much as issue as the division of the revenue/profits is how that number is arrived at.

You could be correct in your other post, of course, that this is all a red hearing, and the players actually want something totally different, like getting rid of the tags, or wholesale changes to FA. I, personally don't think so. I think the root issue is the one stated up front, that the owners are saying the profit margin is too low, and the players don't believe them. After that, it's all egos and grandstanding.

Yea -- lets see the books with General Accounting Principals and not books that hide revenues from Uncle Sam.

[Tony Oday]

Yea -- lets see the books with General Accounting Principals and not books that hide revenues from Uncle Sam.

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.

[rbaloha1]

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.

If you are hiding revenue you are breaking federal law.

[packerbacker1234]

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.

[rbaloha1]

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/content/article/2011/02/24/AR2011022406519.html

[rbaloha1]

More to ponder...

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2043784,00.html

[Lurker64]

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."

[rbaloha1]

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."

Okay what should a new thread be titled?

[Lurker64]

Okay what should a new thread be titled?

A new thread about what?

[mission]

So glad I do.

+1

$$$

[pbmax]

PB;

I agree with all your comments about company value, appreciation, etc. But in many ways that is irrelevant to a situation that will soon arise. At some point in the near future the players will be getting their noses into the teams finances, and will see what the owners have taken out for their own use on a yearly basis. How much the owners have paid themselves. The players should recognize that it is fair for the owners to take some money from ongoing operations. If the owners average $2 million/year, I doubt players will find fault in that. If they find the owners "take" is $100 M/year, I suspect they will scream long and loud that more of that should be given to the players.

It's a very practical issue that will surface soon. It doesn't have to be made more complicated than it is (or will be).

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.