Nonstopdrivel
15 years ago

Packers aren't doing NFL any favors with their financial strategy
 

The upper management that runs the publicly-owned Green Bay Packers may have some explaining to do the next time it attends meetings with the owners of the NFL's 31 privately held franchises. That's because recent news of the Packers' operating profit of over $20 million last year appears to hurt the owners' argument that opting out of the latest Collective Bargaining Agreement with the players was necessary. If a franchise in a miniscule market can turn a profit during a historically down economy, what does that say about big money owners like Dan Snyder and Robert Kraft?

Think about this. Many teams over the past 18 months have laid off dozens of low payroll employees. Those moves look heartless if it turns out those teams are still bringing in millions in profit, even if it is less than it had been in recent years. Telling an employee with three kids they no longer have health benefits because the owner still wants to rake in $30 million is just bad karma, even if it can be justified as good business.

The Packers have elected to be exceptionally frugal in recent years when it comes to player compensation. Ted Thompson and company have been non-existent in the free agent market the past three years. Instead, they have just given extensions to players already under contract like Aaron Rodgers and Greg Jennings in order to reach the mandated salary floor. That strategy is good for business and arguably a sound football decision, but it doesn't do the other owners any favors when the end of the fiscal year financial information is released by the Packers.

A better strategy, knowing the CBA negotiations were looming, would have been to spend closer to the cap in 2008 and thus negate a lot of the revenue that was being generated. It may not have been ideal in the short term for the Packers but it sure could have strengthened the position and argument of the league going forward. In light of the Packers finances, the supposed plight of the owners' is much less convincing. I'm sure the NFL Players Association is taking notes.


UserPostedImage
Nonstopdrivel
15 years ago
It appears Ted Thompson cares more about the long-term health of this franchise than the picayune revenue disputes between the league and the NFLPA. This pleases me immensely.
UserPostedImage
The_Green_Ninja
15 years ago
So, Ted Thompson is wrong for making money...

Wut?
UserPostedImage
dfosterf
15 years ago
I read that article and commented upon it over at SI.com.

I got 5 dollars that says they do not have the balls to publish my commentary.

Suffice to say I was not especially flattering of the author or his perspective.

I will report in the unlikely event I receive a response.
Rockmolder
15 years ago
Yeah. What exactly would they want to hold our front office accountable for? Making a profit? The Packers are supposed to make a loss because our numbers are published? Slightly weird way of starting the article.

Anyway, I can imagine that the Redskins or Cowboys had to cut personnel. They're always on a spending spree. Not to say I'm happy about never jumping into FA, but it does seem better if you look at these numbers.
Nonstopdrivel
15 years ago
Just for clarification, Ross Tucker is a former player. He is rubbing his hands with glee at the consternation he believes other NFL owners must feel to know the Packers, the team from the smallest media market in any professional sport, turned a profit last year. He believes the NFLPA can use this fact as evidence against the owners' argument that the percentage of league revenues devoted to player compensation must decrease. He isn't that the Packers should have reduced their profits -- only that other owners may feel that way.

For the record, I disagree with his premise. I think the Packers' financials actually support the owners' contentions. As has been posted in another thread, the Packers organization netted one of its lowest profits in many years last season. Is this because of the recession? Only partly. It's also because, according to a recent study that was conducted by my own university, operational expenses for teams across the league have skyrocketed in recent years -- far out of proportion to increases in revenue. Thus profit margins are steadily declining across the league. The Cowboys last year posted barely a $10 million profit, which on an investment as gigantic as a) looming debt service on a $1 billion stadium; b) an annual $120 million payroll (not counting coaching, maintenance and administrative staff!); and c) sundry operational expenses, is simply not tenable for long.

Of course you never hear a word about this from the NFLPA. They dismiss it cavalierly as the owners' problem. Well, if changes aren't made, it's swiftly going to become their problem too.

The owners argue that player compensation as a percentage of gross revenues should decline to account for the changing (escalating) costs of doing business in the NFL. I think they're absolutely right. The NFLPA needs to take care that they stay mindful of the broad financial situation besetting their league, or they may find themselves killing the golden goose. All the sentimental blather about "tradition" and "rivalry" and "honor" aside, the NFL is first and foremost a business. No person in his right mind will continue to shoulder the risk of owning a team franchise if he can't have a reasonable expectation of profit.

I side squarely with the owners on this issue.
UserPostedImage
Dulak
15 years ago
I have a BIG LOL for the article ... So let me get this straight - cuz someone has a low paying job and has 3 kids so this means a buisness needs to pay them and keep them employed even thou they dont want too?

Most businesses care about their own pocket books (including my current boss often at the expense of the employees that work there). Wake up out of your dream utopia.

Personally I dont fault the pack for making a profit - I do fault them for not winning football games over making a profit thou.
longtimefan
15 years ago
I brought something like this up months ago..

"THEORY"

WSSP Steve Sparky said a while back after a Mark Murphy interview that salary cap is sort of tied into profit..

Steve was speculating that maybe upper people in GB told Ted to not spend as much so they can stock pile more money


Sounds good, but I think its a reach
Nonstopdrivel
15 years ago
It would be a strategy of limited effectiveness. People forget that not only is there a salary cap, there is also a salary floor. I think it's around 87% of the salary cap (I'm sure Sir Foster knows the exact figure). Plus I believe teams are limited to how much money they can actually stockpile, at least from this source. To some degree the salary cap is "use it or lose it."
UserPostedImage
RaiderPride
15 years ago

Just for clarification, Ross Tucker is a former player. He is rubbing his hands with glee at the consternation he believes other NFL owners must feel to know the Packers, the team from the smallest media market in any professional sport, turned a profit last year. He believes the NFLPA can use this fact as evidence against the owners' argument that the percentage of league revenues devoted to player compensation must decrease. He isn't that the Packers should have reduced their profits -- only that other owners may feel that way.

For the record, I disagree with his premise. I think the Packers' financials actually support the owners' contentions. As has been posted in another thread, the Packers organization netted one of its lowest profits in many years last season. Is this because of the recession? Only partly. It's also because, according to a recent study that was conducted by my own university, operational expenses for teams across the league have skyrocketed in recent years -- far out of proportion to increases in revenue. Thus profit margins are steadily declining across the league. The Cowboys last year posted barely a $10 million profit, which on an investment as gigantic as a) looming debt service on a $1 billion stadium; b) an annual $120 million payroll (not counting coaching, maintenance and administrative staff!); and c) sundry operational expenses, is simply not tenable for long.

Of course you never hear a word about this from the NFLPA. They dismiss it cavalierly as the owners' problem. Well, if changes aren't made, it's swiftly going to become their problem too.

The owners argue that player compensation as a percentage of gross revenues should decline to account for the changing (escalating) costs of doing business in the NFL. I think they're absolutely right. The NFLPA needs to take care that they stay mindful of the broad financial situation besetting their league, or they may find themselves killing the golden goose. All the sentimental blather about "tradition" and "rivalry" and "honor" aside, the NFL is first and foremost a business. No person in his right mind will continue to shoulder the risk of owning a team franchise if he can't have a reasonable expectation of profit.

I side squarely with the owners on this issue.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:



The most educated, well written, and succinct post I have ever read on this forum.

I am very impressed.

+1
""People Will Probably Never Remember What You Said, And May Never Remember What You Did. However, People Will Always Remember How You Made Them Feel."
Fan Shout
Mucky Tundra (13h) : Happy Birthday wpr!
Zero2Cool (14h) : Anders Carlson ... released by 49ers
dfosterf (17h) : Happy Birthday!๐Ÿ˜Š๐Ÿ˜Š๐Ÿ˜Š
wpr (17h) : Thanks Kevin.
Zero2Cool (19h) : Happy Birthday, Wayne! ๐ŸŽ‰๐ŸŽ‚๐Ÿฅณ
beast (20h) : Edge Rushers is the same... it's not the 4-3 vs 3-4 change, it's the Hafley's version of the 4-3... as all 32 teams are actually 4-2
Zero2Cool (6-Nov) : OLB to DE and player requests trade. Yet folks say they are same.
beast (5-Nov) : In other news, the Green Bay Packers have signed Zero2Cool to update their website ๐Ÿ˜‹ jk
beast (5-Nov) : Might just re-sign the kicker we got
beast (5-Nov) : Are there any kickers worth drafting next year?
Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : Preston Smith for Malik Willis
Mucky Tundra (5-Nov) : Getting a 7th rounder from the Stillers
Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : At least we get 7th round pick now!! HELLO NEW KICKER
Mucky Tundra (5-Nov) : Steelers getting a premier lockdown corner!
Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : Packers are trading edge rusher Preston Smith to the Pittsburgh Steelers, per sources.
Mucky Tundra (5-Nov) : Preston Smith traded to the Steelers!!!!
Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : CB Marshon Lattimore to Commanders
Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : Bears are sending RB Khalil Herbert to the Bengals, per sources.
Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : ZaDarius Smith continues his "north" tour.
Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : Let the Chiefs trade a 5th for him
Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : Nearing 30, large contract, nope.
Martha Careful (5-Nov) : any interest in Marshon Lattimore?
Zero2Cool (4-Nov) : What does NFL do if they're over cap?
Mucky Tundra (4-Nov) : They've been able to constantly push it out through extensions, void years etc but they're in the hole by 72 million next year I believe
hardrocker950 (4-Nov) : Seems the Saints are always in cap hell
Mucky Tundra (4-Nov) : Saints HC job is not an envious one; gonna be in cap hell for 3 years
Mucky Tundra (4-Nov) : Dennis Allen has now been fired twice mid-season with Derek Carr as his starting QB
Zero2Cool (4-Nov) : Kuhn let go
beast (4-Nov) : I wonder if the Packers would have any interest in Z. Smith, probably not
Zero2Cool (4-Nov) : Shefter says Browns and Lions will figure out how to get a deal done for Za'Darius Smith..
Zero2Cool (4-Nov) : Packers are more likely to have 1,000 yard rusher than 4,000 yard passer
Zero2Cool (3-Nov) : It's raining hard.
Zero2Cool (3-Nov) : Packers inactives vs. Lions: CB Jaire Alexander S Evan Williams C Josh Myers Non-injury inactives: WR Malik Heath OL Travis Glover DE Bren
packerfanoutwest (3-Nov) : Malik Willis: My focus is helping the Packers win, not proving I can start elsewhere. But he could
Zero2Cool (1-Nov) : I had Texans, but the loss of another WR flipped me
wpr (1-Nov) : I thought about taking the Jets but they've been a disaster. Losing to the Pats last week
Zero2Cool (1-Nov) : Surprised more didn't pick Jets in Pick'em.
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 12:00 PM
Vikings
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
8h / Around The NFL / beast

6-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

6-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

6-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

6-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

6-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

5-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

5-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

5-Nov / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

5-Nov / GameDay Threads / Cheesey

5-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

5-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

5-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

4-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

2-Nov / Around The NFL / wpr

Headlines
Copyright ยฉ 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.comโ„ข. All Rights Reserved.