dfosterf
14 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
14 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
14 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
14 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
14 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. šŸ˜ƒ šŸ˜‰
Fan Shout
beast (5h) : You have a point, it's a very wise move, therefore, that can't be what the Jets are doing.
Zero2Cool (8h) : It'd be a wise move.
beast (18h) : I think Jets are just killing time, and picking up information as they wait for their guy to get done with the playoffs.
Zero2Cool (16-Jan) : Brewers icon & Baseball Hall of Famer Bob Uecker passed away today at the age of 90
Zero2Cool (16-Jan) : Jets wanna interview Jeff Hafley for their HC spot. W. T. F.
beast (15-Jan) : A more aggressive QB, potentially could of hit the WRs more often, taking some risks, but also potential get an INT.
beast (15-Jan) : So Hurts didn't take many, if any risks, and wasn't throwing into Cover 2, which I think helped the Packers. Where a more aggressive QB o
beast (15-Jan) : Cover 2, keep a CB and Safety over top of both WRs... and Hurts (like Rodgers) is overly careful and doesn't like any risk in his throws.
joepacker (15-Jan) : new to this maybe question n wrong place?
joepacker (15-Jan) : how did the packers mostly shut down the eagles passin attack and specifically how did they manage such a good job on aj brown?
Zero2Cool (15-Jan) : Per his dad
Zero2Cool (15-Jan) : Watson to have his surgery soon, and should be back around Week 12, with a normal rehab.
beast (15-Jan) : More likely to listen if the guy controlling the ball is the one telling them
beast (15-Jan) : Apparently because players aren't doing the small things when the coaches tell them, and LaFleur believes they're more likely
Zero2Cool (15-Jan) : Jordan isn't a vocal guy. Why not let him lead his way?
Zero2Cool (15-Jan) : I'm not sure it ever bodes well when you have to tell your team leader to be more vocal.
Zero2Cool (15-Jan) : CFL. Nice.
packerfanoutwest (15-Jan) : good luck with that
packerfanoutwest (15-Jan) : Matt LaFleur looking for Jordan Love to be more of a vocal leader
civic (14-Jan) : Iā€™m old enough to remember watching him play in the CFL
civic (14-Jan) : Clements is taking a lot of experience and knowledge out the door with him
Zero2Cool (14-Jan) : Longtime Packers QB coach Tom Clements is retiring, Matt LaFleur says.
Zero2Cool (14-Jan) : Didn't watch the game so can't say
Mucky Tundra (14-Jan) : Anyone else abhor MNF wildcard games?
Martha Careful (14-Jan) : Why is it that the Rams rookies can contribute right away but our first and second year guys are too young to contribute in a meaningful way
Martha Careful (14-Jan) : Yes, Saquon Barkley had a very nice game. But he has a much better offensive line in front of him. I'll take Josh Jacob's. I love the guy
buckeyepackfan (13-Jan) : Rumor has Mike going to The Bears.
Zero2Cool (13-Jan) : Mike McCarthy is out as Cowboys coach
Mucky Tundra (13-Jan) : DOINKED IN FOR THE WIN!!!!!
Mucky Tundra (13-Jan) : Cardiac Commanders
TheKanataThrilla (13-Jan) : Don't like that call Washtington on 4th down
TheKanataThrilla (12-Jan) : The Bills really need to improve their D. The have the ability to score at will, but if they stumble this D will not save them.
Zero2Cool (12-Jan) : LET'S GO
Mucky Tundra (12-Jan) : Blocked PAT returned for 2; not something you see often
Mucky Tundra (12-Jan) : After a strong start, Herbert playing like ass
Mucky Tundra (11-Jan) : Oh god, that means the Clifford stans will come back out of the woodwork
Zero2Cool (11-Jan) : Fills the openin they had
buckeyepackfan (11-Jan) : Sean Clifford signed to 53 man roster.
Martha Careful (11-Jan) : Two terrific NCAA Football Semi-Final Games...We can only hope the Championship game is as good
Zero2Cool (10-Jan) : Eagles WR DeVonta Smith will be a DNP in todayā€™s practice. Heā€™s dealing with back tightness. But the expectation is that heā€™ll play Sunday.
Zero2Cool (10-Jan) : Jalen Hurts has cleared the concussion protocol. Heā€™s playing Sunday.
Zero2Cool (10-Jan) : š•avier McKinney First Team All-Pro
Zero2Cool (10-Jan) : NFL moves Vikings-Rams playoff tilt to Arizona due to fires
Zero2Cool (10-Jan) : Rams lose home field advantage for Monday game.
Mucky Tundra (9-Jan) : Notre Lame=Notre Dame, Luckeyes=Ohio State, Pedo St=Penn St
Zero2Cool (9-Jan) : ... It clearly was not what we were supposed to be in, certainly."
Zero2Cool (9-Jan) : Hafley says 3rd and 11 call there was a miscommunication.
Zero2Cool (9-Jan) : The only team I know is Texas from that. Who are the other three?
Mucky Tundra (9-Jan) : Notre Lame vs Pedo St tonight and the Luckeyes vs Texas tomorrow
Mucky Tundra (9-Jan) : Stud
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
2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

16-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

16-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

16-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

16-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

15-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

15-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

14-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / civic

14-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

14-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

Headlines
Copyright Ā© 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.comā„¢. All Rights Reserved.