Jump to content

- - - - -

IS the NFL losing money...Jerry Richardson's 200M shortfall pie chart

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
40 replies to this topic

#31 Montsta


    Rest In Peace

  • Joined: 08-December 08
  • posts: 7,968
  • Reputation: 6,599

Posted 05 January 2011 - 04:33 PM

Don't go chasing waterfalls


#32 carpanfan96


    play hard, hit harder

  • Joined: 29-November 08
  • posts: 12,116
  • Reputation: 991

Posted 05 January 2011 - 04:35 PM

What the owners are saying is this

You have stadium workers, you have the players, the Front Office, Coaches..trainers.. Stadium upkeep, Players, the league...so forth...

in 2007/2008 and 2009 there were a few teams that lost money and (Miami being the worst one off )(-400 million because of stadium cost.)

So while I don't think the league as a whole is losing money, I could see that a few teams because of the stadiums being down the hole on money.

Avg income for a team during those 3 years was around 20 million and that was before stadium upkeep was included.

#33 beastson


    Philly Cheese Steak

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 10,776
  • Reputation: 1,845

Posted 05 January 2011 - 05:01 PM


Do you really classify players as employees?

#34 Happy Panther

Happy Panther

    Now even funnier.

  • Joined: 16-March 09
  • posts: 18,507
  • Reputation: 3,471

Posted 05 January 2011 - 05:16 PM

A few things

Most of the teams (24 of 36) have a profit margin greater than 10%. However this is pretax. But I'm sure each team has a team of tax accountants making sure things are OK. I wouldn't worry about that.

Of the teams that have a profit margin less than 10% half have a pretty large debt ratio

Only 2 teams lost money

All of those metrics are far and away better than the NBA (who are facing a real lockout) the MLB and NHL

Jerry Richardson is one of the few owners who are making a margin less than 10% and haven't taken on huge debt. the others are the Titans, Broncos, 49ers, Packers and Raiders

If you compare these numbers to 2007 they are much better. More teams are above 10% and less teams are losing money. Additionally the top teams are making WAY more money than they did a few years ago


I agree with you that a shrewd business owner wants to maximize ROI and profit. But it certainly appears that the NFL is in the best financial shape it has been in a while despite player salaries.

I'm not saying I wouldn't do anything different as an owner. However between the Harbaugh comments and the pie charts I'm wondering if Jerry is being honest with all of us

I don't like liars

#35 Happy Panther

Happy Panther

    Now even funnier.

  • Joined: 16-March 09
  • posts: 18,507
  • Reputation: 3,471

Posted 05 January 2011 - 05:18 PM


Do you really classify players as employees?

Not cube dwelling accountants.

Rainmaking superstar salespeople.

In many companies the rainmakers make way more than the CEO

#36 mountainpantherfan


    In Honor of Sam Mills

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,907
  • Reputation: 5

Posted 05 January 2011 - 05:24 PM


Do you really classify players as employees?

What else would you classify them. They aren't partners, because they don't invest any money up front. They aren't volunteers. And they aren't shareholders, as again they don't invest any money up front. They're not customers.

In all honesty, they probably do resemble more of a vendor for the team but by no means do the players want to be seen in that light aka independent contractor. Then, there is no basis for a unionized workforce or ability to demand things like health coverage ect.

By their own admission through the unionization of the workforce, they are employees.

#37 Happy Panther

Happy Panther

    Now even funnier.

  • Joined: 16-March 09
  • posts: 18,507
  • Reputation: 3,471

Posted 05 January 2011 - 05:25 PM

pretty goddamn important employees

#38 Sheldon Wolowizard

Sheldon Wolowizard

    Junior Member

  • Joined: 03-December 08
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 205
  • Reputation: 0

Posted 05 January 2011 - 05:31 PM


Do you really classify players as employees?


They are paid to perform a service, in this case, playing football. They are employees.

#39 bleys


    Simple and Plain

  • Joined: 28-November 08
  • posts: 15,606
  • Reputation: 1,635

Posted 05 January 2011 - 05:33 PM

I believe they are classified as independent..

#40 Highlandfire


    There can be only one.

  • Joined: 29-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,319
  • Reputation: -6

Posted 05 January 2011 - 05:42 PM

I need to go back and watch that part again. But nobody seems to buy the idea that the NFL is losing money

I know that Forbes may not have full audit reports but they capture the major stuff.

According to this the League had net pre-tax income in the hundreds of millions.


Here is some more math from the link below. The current TV deal works out to around $149M per team per year. The maximum salary per team (before this year) was $128M. Just on tv rights alone the teams have $21M each to cover operating expenses and we haven't even counted all the other revenue streams.


So i am wondering if Jerry is being honest with his pie chart? something doesn't add up

Bottom line, screw pie charts. the Billionares are not going to keep overpaying the spoiled brat millionares.

Now here is what the Union needs to understand, it isn't the owners jobs to keep x player in his 12 houses, 18 cars, 200k per month expense account, all his hundreds of thousands in bling etc. Those days are going to come to a screeching halt come March.

Now can players still become millionares? Hell yeah. Well they still be paid better than any Job they can get with that college degree they 'earn' in school? Hell yeah! But bottom line, The owners are employers, players are employees and the high salarys are going to get cut.

'But the owners make so much profit'. Yeah and? I don't see MCSE's telling Billy Gates what he has to pay them. As for as the game goes, you could get rid of ALL the current players, and replace them over the next 3 years with draft picks and CFL guys and you won't know the difference 3 years from now the difference in the quality of the game.

#41 AntiBuc


    It ain't what it was

  • Joined: 16-December 08
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 126
  • Reputation: 18

Posted 05 January 2011 - 05:46 PM

Remember, Jerry said $200 mil negative cash flow, not net income loss. I expect they were profitable on the income statement, but lost cash. Without a peek at the books, couldn't guess why, but the premise is not uncommon. However, cash is king in business...negative cash flow is, to borrow JR's words, "not sustainable".

If he's in fact operating at less than 10% margin, experiencing negative cashflow, and having to face the player union's legal sharks on a regular basis, then no wonder he seemed irritable at the press conference. He's a bump-in-the-road from real financial problems playing it that close. No wonder he's being Mr. Hardball right now.