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.
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.
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
15 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.
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
15 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
15 years ago
i'd be happy to take those tickets off your hands, guys. 😃 😉
Fan Shout
dfosterf (1h) : Nobody coming up with a keep, but at x amount
dfosterf (1h) : Trade, cut or keep
dfosterf (2h) : that from Jaire
dfosterf (2h) : My guess is the Packers floated the concept of a reworked contract via his agent and agent got a f'
Zero2Cool (2h) : Yes, and that is why I think Rob worded it how he did. Rather than say "agent"
dfosterf (3h) : Same laws apply. Agent must present such an offer to Jaire. Cannot accept or reject without presenting it
Zero2Cool (3h) : I'm thinking that is why Rob worded it how he did.
dfosterf (3h) : The Packers can certainly still make the offer to the agent
dfosterf (3h) : Laws of agency and definition of fiduciary responsibility
dfosterf (3h) : Jaire is open to a reduced contract without Jaire's permission
dfosterf (3h) : The agent would arguably violate the law if he were to tell the Packers
Zero2Cool (3h) : That someone ... likely the agent.
Zero2Cool (3h) : So, Jaire has not been offered nor rejected a pay reduction, but someone says he'd decline.
Zero2Cool (3h) : Demovksy says t was direct communication with someone familiar with Jaire’s line of thinking at that moment.
Zero2Cool (3h) : Demovsky just replied to me a bit ago. Jaire hasn't said it.
dfosterf (5h) : Of course, that depends on the definition of "we"
dfosterf (5h) : We have been told that they haven't because he wouldn't accept it. I submit we don't know that
dfosterf (5h) : What is the downside in making a calculated reduced offer to Jaire?
Zero2Cool (21h) : Packers are receiving interest in Jaire Alexander but a trade is not imminent
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Jalen Ramsey wants to be traded. He's never happy is he?
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : two 1sts in 2022 and two 2nd's in 2023 and 2024
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers had fortunate last three drafts.
dfosterf (15-Apr) : I may have to move
dfosterf (15-Apr) : My wife just told the ancient Japanese sushi dude not enough rice under his fish
Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : I think a dozen is what I need
dfosterf (14-Apr) : Go fund me for this purpose just might work. A dozen nurses show up at 1265 to provide mental health assistance.
dfosterf (14-Apr) : Maybe send a crew of Angels to the Packers draft room on draft day.
Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : I am the Angel that gets visited.
dfosterf (14-Apr) : Visiting Angels has a pretty good reputation
Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : what
Martha Careful (14-Apr) : WINNING IT, not someone else losing it. The best victory though was re-uniting with his wife
Martha Careful (14-Apr) : The manner in which he won it was just amazing and wonderful. First blowing the lead then getting back, then blowing it. But ultimately
Zero2Cool (12-Apr) : I'm guessing since the thumb was broken, he wasn't feeling it.
dfosterf (10-Apr) : Looking for guidance. Not feeling the thumb.
Mucky Tundra (10-Apr) : If they knew about it or not
Mucky Tundra (10-Apr) : I don't recall that he did which is why I asked.
Zero2Cool (10-Apr) : Guessing they probably knew. Did he have cast or something on?
Mucky Tundra (10-Apr) : Did they know that at the time or was that something the realized afterwards?
Zero2Cool (9-Apr) : Van Ness played most of season with broken thumb
wpr (9-Apr) : yay
Zero2Cool (9-Apr) : Mark Murphy says Steelers likely to protect Packers game. Meaning, no Ireland
Zero2Cool (8-Apr) : Struggling to figure out what text editor options are needed and which are 'nice to have'
Mucky Tundra (8-Apr) : *CHOMP CHOMP CHOMP*
Zero2Cool (2-Apr) : WR who said he'd break Xavier Worthy 40 time...and ran slower than you
Mucky Tundra (2-Apr) : Who?
Zero2Cool (2-Apr) : Texas’ WR Isaiah Bond is scheduled to visit the Bills, Browns, Chiefs, Falcons, Packers and Titans starting next week.
Zero2Cool (2-Apr) : Spotting ball isn't changing, only measuring distance is, Which wasn't the issue.
Zero2Cool (2-Apr) : The spotting of the ball IS the issue. Not the chain gang.
Mucky Tundra (2-Apr) : Will there be a tracker on the ball or something?
Zero2Cool (1-Apr) : uh oh
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
3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

15-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

13-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

12-Apr / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Zero2Cool

11-Apr / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Rockmolder

2-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

2-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

1-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

1-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

31-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

30-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

29-Mar / Random Babble / wpr

28-Mar / Random Babble / Martha Careful

26-Mar / Random Babble / Mucky Tundra

25-Mar / Random Babble / Martha Careful

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