Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

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


Happy Panther

Recommended Posts

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.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/30/football-valuations-10_NFL-Team-Valuations_Rank.html

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.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/6016664/nfl_2010_are_the_owners_losing_money_pg2.html?cat=14

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He added that the owners have done all they can do to convince the players that they are operating at a loss before their request to get more and work less, but that is not true.

Why have they not opened the books? Well, I understand that the employer has risk and hidden costs that would be lost in the numbers, but if they gave the books to a mediator and allowed that firm to look into the books then negotiations could start from that point--the truth. Tell the owners why their info is misleading and tell the union why their beleifs and demands are skewed. Then negotiate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they show any profit. They are doing it wrong.

Admittedly they don't show anything so the Forbes link and the simple math involve some broad assumptions.

At the same time, if simple math shows that the owners are doing well a pie chart isn't convincing me, or more importantly the players, anything contrary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/30/football-valuations-10_NFL-Team-Valuations_Rank.html

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.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/6016664/nfl_2010_are_the_owners_losing_money_pg2.html?cat=14

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

Jerry's pie chart was obfuscated as hell. It didn't show or prove anything except that there is a pool of money, and that the owners want to shift it more in their favor to cover a "loss".

Honestly, I'm not buying it now. If the owners are trying to negotiate a lower cap because the economy is tanking, I'm not on board with that. Yes, the economy is bad off. But that's when you lower prices for admission to keep attendance up, and expand your advertising deals. Not lower player pay. Because if they negotiate a lower cap, and all the sudden the economy turns around, the players are simply playing for less money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think the NFL is losing money you are kidding yourselves. It is the most popular sport in the US and probably top two in the world. The big debate is over how the owners calculate the ROI. There is a billion dollars that the owners do not put into the equation. Not sure why, but they don't.

The big issue is the players want to see the books so they can see how much $ the owners are making. As I have said before, the tail doesn't wag the dog. I wouldn't show any of my employees how much my company made. If they don't like go play in Europe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give individual players a base salary based on the TV deals. the salaries increase based on revenues. Concessions, Jersey sales, ticket sales, parking, etc. They go up, salaries go up. Winning is directly linked to money.

I also think fines should go to player retirement account or emergency medical fund.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think the NFL is losing money you are kidding yourselves. It is the most popular sport in the US and probably top two in the world. The big debate is over how the owners calculate the ROI. There is a billion dollars that the owners do not put into the equation. Not sure why, but they don't.

The big issue is the players want to see the books so they can see how much $ the owners are making. As I have said before, the tail doesn't wag the dog. I wouldn't show any of my employees how much my company made. If they don't like go play in Europe.

Just because it is the most popular, doesn't mean they are making money. A lot of NFL fans can watch and support their team for free. They don't have to buy shirts, tickets, or any other NFL paraphernalia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...