dfosterf
15 years ago

Everyone with season tickets can afford and extra $9 on average.

That means if they can afford $9 they can afford $18

Bump it up to an average of $18 and be really financially solid to make the moves to get back to back Superbowls.

"RaiderPride" wrote:



It is effectively dollar for dollar. This team grossed 247 million and netted 4.



I have stated it every whichaway, but no one bothers to read it.

I feel another rant coming on strong. Everybody goes all philosophical, but they conveniently forget that

WE ARE NOT GOING TO OPERATE IN THE RED---- Our FO WOULD lose their jobs if they did that----- it MIGHT (we don't know, but figuring the nature of this organization, you better plan on it)

BE.
MORE.
IMPORTANT.
TO.
THE.
ORGANIZATION.
THAN.
WINNING.



You want to keep the players, the revenue has to increase. Period.
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member
15 years ago

DF,
I know journalist slant stories. I am not upset by what is going on. I do think raising prices simply for the sake of raising them is wrong. Not GB but the league as a whole. This is a part of the posturing when they face the player's union.
I only skimmed the article you linked to. I always question when some one reports that they "lost" money in investments. Almost always that is just a paper transaction. Legal but not the whole story.

Move it away from football- If Bill Gates spent a "paltry" $100 million on investments and over 5 years they grew to be worth $200 million before the 2009 downturn and they are now worth $$184 million, it is reported that Gates "lost" $16 million in investments. he can no doubt deduct that on his taxes in some fashion. My contention is that he did not lose $16. Deduct it from your taxes and net worth. I am fine with that but if he only paid $100 and it is still worth $186 million he still in the black not red. Now if he bought at $100 on sold at $86 I will agree that he lost $16 million.

The same for GB. Until they sell their investments they have not lost anything. They are just erasing one number on a piece of paper and writing in a different number. It does not mean anything. (Tax attorney's and financial planners will disagree I know.)

"dfosterf" wrote:



You skimmed the report from the Green Bay Packers and quoted from that one guy and his interpretation. Not fair.

I addressed the "paper" nature of that loss, but I guess you didn't get that far.

"wpr" wrote:



I know it is not fair. But I am at the office and I am now in a time crunch. I may not get to look at it closely until Sunday afternoon or Monday. (And I might forget by then.) I just tried to reply so you would not think I was ignoring you. My bad.
UserPostedImage
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member
15 years ago

Everyone with season tickets can afford and extra $9 on average.

That means if they can afford $9 they can afford $18

Bump it up to an average of $18 and be really financially solid to make the moves to get back to back Superbowls.

"dfosterf" wrote:



It is effectively dollar for dollar. This team grossed 247 million and netted 4.



I have stated it every whichaway, but no one bothers to read it.

I feel another rant coming on strong. Everybody goes all philosophical, but they conveniently forget that

WE ARE NOT GOING TO OPERATE IN THE RED---- Our FO WOULD lose their jobs if they did that----- it MIGHT (we don't know, but figuring the nature of this organization, you better plan on it)

BE.
MORE.
IMPORTANT.
TO.
THE.
ORGANIZATION.
THAN.
WINNING.



You want to keep the players, the revenue has to increase. Period.

"RaiderPride" wrote:



You are right in the end it doesn't matter. I will probably start selling them to a ticket broker. In the past I gave away tickets to friends and family. (even a total stranger once.) I probably won't do that any more.
UserPostedImage
dfosterf
15 years ago

DF,
I know journalist slant stories. I am not upset by what is going on. I do think raising prices simply for the sake of raising them is wrong. Not GB but the league as a whole. This is a part of the posturing when they face the player's union.
I only skimmed the article you linked to. I always question when some one reports that they "lost" money in investments. Almost always that is just a paper transaction. Legal but not the whole story.

Move it away from football- If Bill Gates spent a "paltry" $100 million on investments and over 5 years they grew to be worth $200 million before the 2009 downturn and they are now worth $$184 million, it is reported that Gates "lost" $16 million in investments. he can no doubt deduct that on his taxes in some fashion. My contention is that he did not lose $16. Deduct it from your taxes and net worth. I am fine with that but if he only paid $100 and it is still worth $186 million he still in the black not red. Now if he bought at $100 on sold at $86 I will agree that he lost $16 million.

The same for GB. Until they sell their investments they have not lost anything. They are just erasing one number on a piece of paper and writing in a different number. It does not mean anything. (Tax attorney's and financial planners will disagree I know.)

"wpr" wrote:



You skimmed the report from the Green Bay Packers and quoted from that one guy and his interpretation. Not fair.

I addressed the "paper" nature of that loss, but I guess you didn't get that far.

"dfosterf" wrote:



I know it is not fair. But I am at the office and I am now in a time crunch. I may not get to look at it closely until Sunday afternoon or Monday. (And I might forget by then.) I just tried to reply so you would not think I was ignoring you. My bad.

"wpr" wrote:



I'm the one apologizing.


I get worked up about it. That's why that thread was ready-made in the first place....


I act like it's my own money. (this ticket price increase represents a paltry additional 5.5 million a year in additional revenue, btw)

Hey- Some people care about clothes on their back, food on the table, roof over their heads...love, war, etc....other mundane bullshit...


All I give a shit about is the retention of my players and getting more.

What pisses me off is that I happen to know that when I (or anyone) advocates "keeping him" , or "pay the man", or "Why doesn't Ted get "x" player?"--- I have done the math, have seen ZERO evidence of anyone else having done so, yet everyone has an opinion that I am pretty GD sure isn't taking into account the realities in a true dollar and cents way given the realities of what it really means to be a small market NFL franchise. I wind up (looking like I'm) lashing out at a good guy like you, when all I'm really doing is howling at the moon.

Pay me no heed, my friend. :thumbleft:
all_about_da_packers
15 years ago

That means if they can afford $9 they can afford $18

Bump it up to an average of $18 and be really financially solid to make the moves to get back to back Superbowls.

"RaiderPride" wrote:




RP and DF, here is my gripe with the issue.

The statement makes it come off as if the loss of a cap means the Packers are going to need extra money to run efficiently.

Well, given the fact that the Packers contributed money to the revenue-sharing pot - where the top teams in terms of revenue give to the bottom teams - then one would say the assumption implied in the statement released about '(prices) needing to be increased' is suspect.


We can say that the Packers need to raise ticket prices in order to remain competitive. Okay... what this infers is that teams are going to increase costs, and to this point all projections I've read state the opposite. If the Packers increase their budget... I'm all for it. But given our GM, that's not exactly likely, either.

Also, one must question how much merchandise, concessions, parking, etc. will increase. I'm all for remaining competitive, but is it necessary to pump up the prices on everything given that the Packers have usually been in the top third of the league in generating revenue, and projections indicate that costs will decrease next year?

Here is my opinion on the matter: I think this move is more about putting together a fund for 2011 in case there is a lockout. Last time I read, there was such an emergency fund that existed, and had somewhere around $100 million in it already... I don't mind increasing prices to make sure you have a reserve fund to cover operating costs in a lockout...


The issue for me here is not that the prices increased - the organization has a right to do that, and can continue to given that many people will not hesitate to buy tickets despite the bump. The issue is that this seems to foreshadow (to me, at least) that teams are seriously working with an eye on a lockout year.... which would be terrible from everyone (but the owners) perspective.
The NFL: Where Greg Jennings Happens.
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member
14 years ago
Yeah I noticed that when I opened the envelope. At first I thought I was just imagining that it was an earlier date. But then I realized they had made a change. Not that it matters.
UserPostedImage
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
14 years ago

I DONT EVEN GO...(well, VERY rarely)l[/size]

"dfosterf" wrote:



[giant sucking sound coming from Iowa]

and what _do_ you do with said tickets?
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
4PackGirl
14 years ago
i'd be happy to take those tickets off your hands, guys. 😃 😉
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (15h) : Fake news. Cowboys say no
Zero2Cool (16h) : Mystery candidate in the Cowboys head coaching search believed to be Packers ST Coordinator Rich Bisaccia.
beast (23-Jan) : Also why do both NYC teams have absolutely horrible OL for over a decade?
beast (23-Jan) : I wonder why the Jets always hire defensive coaches to be head coach
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Still HC positions available out there. I wonder if Hafley pops up for one
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Trent Baalke is out as the Jaguars GM.
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Jeff Hafley would have been a better choice, fortunately they don't know that. Someone will figure that out next off season
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Aaron Glenn Planning To Take Jets HC Job
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Martha- C'est mon boulot! 😁
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you
wpr (22-Jan) : Z, glad you are feeling better.
wpr (22-Jan) : My son and D-I-L work for UM. It's a way to pick on them.
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you. I rarely get sick, and even more rarely sick to the point I can't work.
wpr (22-Jan) : Beast- back to yesterday, I CAN say OSU your have been Michigan IF the odds of making the playoffs were more urgent.
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Glad to hear you are feeling a bit better.
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : I've been near death ill last several days, finally feel less dead and site issues.
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : It is a big deal. This host is having issues. It's frustrating.
Martha Careful (22-Jan) : just kidding...it was down
Martha Careful (22-Jan) : you were blocked yesterday, due to a a recalcitrant demeanor yesterday in the penalty box for a recalcitrant demeanor
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Was that site shutdown on your end or mine? No big deal, just curious
beast (21-Jan) : That way teams like Indiana and SMU don't make the conference championships by simply avoiding all the other good teams in their own confere
beast (21-Jan) : Also, with these "Super Conferences" instead of a single conference champion, have 4 teams make a Conference playoffs.
beast (21-Jan) : Also in college football, is a bye week a good or bad thing?
Martha Careful (21-Jan) : The tournament format was fine. Seeding could use some work.
beast (21-Jan) : You can't assume Ohio State would of won the Michigan game...
beast (21-Jan) : Rankings were 1) Oregon 2) Georgia 3) Texas 4) Penn State 5) Notre Dame 6) Ohio State, none of the rest mattered
wpr (21-Jan) : Texas, ND and OSU would have been fighting for the final 2 slots.
wpr (21-Jan) : Oregon and Georgia were locks. Without the luxury of extra playoff berths, Ohios St would have been more focused on Michigan game.
wpr (21-Jan) : Zero, no. If there were only 4 teams Ohio State would have been one of them. Boise St and ASU would not have been selected.
Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : So that was 7 vs 8, that means in BCS they never would made it?
Martha Careful (21-Jan) : A great game. Give ND credit for coming back, although I am please with the outcome.
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : FG to make it academic
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : and there's the dagger
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ooooo 8 point game with 4 minutes to go!
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ooooooooohhhhhh he missed!
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Ooooo that completion makes things VERY interesting
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Game not over yet
beast (21-Jan) : Oh yeah, Georgia starting quarterback season ending elbow injury
beast (21-Jan) : Sadly something happened to Georgia... they should be playing in this game against Ohio State
beast (21-Jan) : I thought Ohio State and Texas were both better than Notre Dame & Penn State
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Notre Lame getting rolled
Martha Careful (21-Jan) : Ohio State just got punched in the gut. Lets see how they respond
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Notre Lame vs the Luckeyes, bleh
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Oh snap!!!
Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : Even Stevie Wonder can see that.
Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : Nah, you see Lions OC leaving to be HC of Bears is directly related to Packers.
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ohhhhhhh Zero is in TROUBLE
packerfanoutwest (21-Jan) : Zero, per your orders, check Bearshome, not packershome
Zero2Cool (20-Jan) : Then he'll land with another team and flourish.
Zero2Cool (20-Jan) : Ben going to Bears. He'll be out in 3 years.
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 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 12 @ 3:30 PM
Eagles
Recent Topics
22-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

22-Jan / Random Babble / packerfanoutwest

21-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

21-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

19-Jan / Random Babble / Martha Careful

18-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

16-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

16-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.