dfoster, I finally read your other post. Sorry for the delay.

We all know whether we want them to or not GB will raise ticket prices that is a done deal. Some of the fans say "great let's spend the extra revenue on high quality free agents". I don't believe they will. The extra revenue is going to go into their general fund. Ted has never ever spent a lot of money on free agents. We only got Woodson because no one else wanted him.

It is interesting that it looks like the NFL is going to attempt to reduce players salaries this year. If that is the case why do they need such a large increase in ticket prices? Keep in mind GB is already in the top half of the NFL teams in terms of revenue. I think it is likely that GB since they are a public company that the other NFL teams are using them as their front.

---

Thank you Wayne for taking the time to read my thread.

We will agree to disagree on the ticket price increase.

Also, I accused the guy you quoted of leaving out the 16 mil loss in investment income...

That isn't what he did. I was effectively accusing him of "conveniently" cherry-picking numbers, but what he did was use the Forbes figures, not the Packers figures.

All the national media types do that, because the Forbes figures are the only ones available for 31 of the 32 teams.

The exception of course is the Packers, but rarely do any of the authors go find them.

The problem is, the Forbes figures are a guess. The Packers numbers are not.

The biggest REASON I get worked up about the whole ticket price thing is because the vast majority of the fans work under so many false assumptions, not the folks that (understandably) get concerned about (perhaps their own) tickets and their affordability. I often seem to be taking it out on those that get upset, but it is the only time anyone seems to even try and grasp the financial apsects, and it looks like I'm lashing out at them.

I blame the problem on our media sources not taking the time and trouble to really explain to the fans that there are really 3 sets of figures presented for their consumption, and the most important one is the least reported.

I will give you 3. This is for 2008 by the way We have a whole more 6 months before we find out about 2009

We have a large percentage of folks that think we have a payroll of under 100 mil They are thinking we can sign everyone, because we had this low payroll. They know we had a salary cap (<128 mil, 2nd figure) but we were "way under it.

But then there is the 3rd figure---the actual payroll 2008 139 mil


on that 247 mil in gross

They don't even stop and think...wait a minute...How could we have only spent 93 million when we have 247 million in revenue and there is a requirement to spend 59.1% of gross revenue on players?

They forgot that only the 53 count towards that published payroll figure.

We DO spend 59.1% of gross on personnel.

10th in revenue? True. Difference between 10th and 32nd in revenue---less than 24 million

Difference between 10th and 1st? Well over a hundred million.

We also have to share the revenue with the visiting team as regards that ticket price increase. I think it's now 50/50---It used to be 60/40, or still is...relatively unimportant....

call it 9 bucks a ticket average. Call it 70,000 seats. 8 games

call it 60% to the Pack

9 x 70, 000= $630,000.00 x 8 games = $5,040,000.00 x 60%=

$3,024,000.00

Some huge windfall

What did we just give Chiller again? Are we really raising those prices for a war chest, and while the media can talk until they are blue in the face about "teams cutting payroll" this upcoming year...

Take the Pack-----

How?

Does anyone seriously believe we are going to decimate our roster in some sort of rollback of payroll?

It is not even plausible, imo


For anyone reading this, and the eyes are glazing over just reading the post, much less the myriad of links referenced, just remember this.

2008---- 247 mil gross 138.7 mil player payroll 4 mil profit

2009 --- unknown gross unknown player payroll unknown profit

no known revenue increase, but did spend money on non income generating shit--- (practice facilities, heated field, some fancy schmancy admin shit for pro-shop and internet sales) --and USA Today has published that our "low" figure went up 20 million in payroll (As of Nov 2009) that is, the 93/94 mil went to 114mil from 2008 to 2009

2010 --- I will be generous and say we increased revenue by 5.5 million
(unshared suite license revenue increase-unknown, but seriously doubt anywhere near that)

Just contemplate this--- our payroll went up almost 15 million between 2007 and 2008.

Have you seen any evidence that anyone's payroll has gone down?

me either. Now try and fill in those blanks, sign our players we want to resign, cut the players we want to cut (salaries available upon request)

Now see the problem?

No?

shit.

lol--- OK , I'll start you off. Nick Collins pay increase will eat up the entire revenue from the ticket price increase.


Forgive me---------please----This is just my "The Green Bay Packers do not have the money that everyone thinks they have to spend" rant...

And that "includes" the concept that they are the "front men" for the league regarding the upcoming labor strife due to the public disclosure aspect.

DF,
Not that it really makes a significant difference, use 10 games not 8 since GB forces ticket holders to pay full prices for preseason games.

I didn't say GB was going to be the front men for the NFL. I just wondered if that was possible and a part of their plan.

I also agree it is difficult to slash salaries. Collins and others have earned and expect an increase in payroll. The only way I can see the league "bringing salaries back in line" is if the amount of increase is less than it would have been a year ago. So in other-wards instead of getting a huge increase he would only get a medium sized increase.

It will be interesting to see what happens.

---

I am the one that said the "front men for the NFL"...earlier in this thread...my "conspiracy theory" comment...




I have some suspicions about coming in so close profit-wise when we were on a relatively stable upward trajectory, You only sort of alluded to it, I believe in your post(s) in the ticket $$$ thread, and frankly, I was impressed that you had.

I guess my argument is complicated, and possibly at cross-purposes in the "attempt to win" a discussion department, but at least I'm pretty friggin' thorough, lol

I have one more point that you will probably never hear from anywhere else when discussing these NFL teams.

There is a possibility that this whole damn (labor/CBA/ticket prices)--the "financial side" problem has to do with one thing.

The inability of these very wealthy owners to be able to borrow the kind of money that the Wall Street experts think that they "should" be able to borrow (market forces/supply/demand, etc) if they had the "correct" business model for their circumstances. The number one "restriction" to getting at that money is the "flaw" that is keeping them from making the "correct" profit of around 30-34 percent....

That is a huge number, but that is the number that I have read that they arrived at. Thing is, when you think about their "industry" ---you can see how the owners would not see that figure as so very far-fetched....

Go ask Wade if I'm whack. (Well, maybe not, lol)

Yeah I knew I read it somewhere. It all blurs together after a while.

Time to interject a new item it to the budget.
Depreciation of the players. I have been wondering if they changed anything from 2007 to 2008.

---

If you want to chew on something that has the potential to really piss you off, go back and click on my link to the Forbes article.

Then go look at "revenue per fan" data for the various teams.

That is NOT "revenue per ticket holder"

It is factoring in their entire market.

The Packer fan pays(I didn't do the exact math, but this number isn't far off)

approximately...

10 TIMES the average NFL fan, and almost all the others are within a buck or two, at least the (several) I looked at.

Go look!

I think "our" number was like $280.00

I think the Cowboys were like $24.00

See that is a wrong 'assumption" on Forbes part. They are saying Gb only has 303,000 fans as that is the metro area of the stadium while Detroit has 4.4 million fans. Sometimes people can be too cleaver with their numbers.

---

They are looking at the "Tappable" market.

Their flaw isn't the important part. It's not really a flaw, it's just a way that they chose to define the various "markets" but again, really unimportant.

The important part is that a Jerry Jones will always aspire to get as close as he can to Green Bay's number. Transfer the concept of getting every possible nickle out of every Tom Dick and Harry in your geographical base... (He'd probably call it the Green Bay model, lol) ....If he could get 10 bucks closer (start thinking pay per view TV and shit) why, he'd be pretty happy with those x millions of folk forking over an additional 10 each, and if he comes up with some ideas to get at it, well, all will follow suit in order to keep up with the Joneses (bad pun)

I worry about that revenue differential, especially when you couple it with most owners being able to spend as they see fit, not even getting into the widening gap that creates around a billion a decade between us and the top teams... We are the only franchise that is run by folk that have to answer for their profit and loss. The owner can dip into his pocket if he feels like it. We don't have one of those.

I'm still a slug.

I think a team that has a waiting list as long as the Packers do is pricing its product too low.

I just don't understand why group X of fans is somehow more entitled to sell their tickets for higher prices via tour companies, classified ads, ebay, whatever. Speaking as a fan who will die after barely moving up the list for years, no decades, and for all those fans who live hundreds or thousands of miles away from the sacred Lambeau, I'd rather the team do what it took to have more money available for quality football players.

If you could give me an argument that higher prices would somehow mean less net revenue for the team, either short-run or long-run, I'd buy that.

But otherwise?

Ten games. Ten extra dollars a game. 72000 seats. That's $7.2 million/year of extra revenue.

Twenty-five extra dollars a game. $18 million/year.

Fifty extra dollars a game. $36 million/year.

Want to convince me that Packers shouldn't keep hiking the ticket prices? Show me how not hiking the prices is going to still get that $7.2 - 36 million extra every year.

Like I say, I'm a slug.

---

Er, no...You are an economist.

:tongue3:

Someone do just one piece of legwork on my behalf.

Go look at how many radio stations ----and where they are located---

broadcast (and pay revenue to) the New York Yankees. Just give us the number.

Then do the same for a small market baseball team.

I know for a fact that the Yankees have one station affiliate in Arkansas.

That is some serious market penetration.


Everyone wants to believe that because we are a "blue-collar, loyal, can't afford it, non-profit, publicly owned, yada yada yada" fanbase that we are somehow "owed" special consideration.

YOU ARE GETTING IT. They are not COMPLETELY HOSING YOU FINANCIALLY---and they could be. Your passion is worth BIG BUCKS, friend.

That is to no one individually--but everyone in general.

From an economic standpoint in this league---

We should have (by far) the highest ticket prices in the entire league.

A knee-jerk reaction on my part would probably say that Buffalo should be 2nd. but I suddenly realize that they probably should not be anywhere close.

Why?

They can't sell the product at those prices. Not enough will buy it. They will here...or we have every indication that they will. THere is a "tipping point" and at a minimum, to find out would do a "wipe-job" on the multi-decade season ticket waiting list...so if you have been waiting.... :thumbleft: