Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

rhickok1109 wrote:

RyanChristiansen wrote:

rhickok1109 wrote:What difference does a billionaire owner make when revenue is shared? Do you think any of those owners actually pour their own money into a football team?

Not all operational costs fall under the salary line item. Facilities and marketing would not be included in that figure, for example, and I don't think coaches' salaries are part of the cap, but I may be wrong on that.

No, you're correct, but the other stuff doesn't amount to much compared to player salaries. In 2017, players collected a total of just under $8 billion while owners collected a little more than $8 billion. The two pies are very similar in size but obviously the owners' revenue is cut into many fewer slices.

I ask again: Do you think any of those owners actually pour their own money into a football team?

Yes, I do. They certainly have to when they purchase the team; the NFL has limitations as to how much of a purchase can be financed. Once they own the team? It's very possible. The Davis family are probably the least wealthy family in the NFL; it was reported last year that one of the reasons they traded Khalil Mack last year was they didn't have the cash to pay him. Not only would they have had to pay his signing bonus immediately, but the entire guaranteed portion of it would have to be placed in an escrow account. Supposedly, the Raiders didn't have the cash flow to make it happen...maybe they should have paid Gruden $7.5 million a year instead of $10.

When it comes to reporting revenues in an accurate manner, I don't rely on the word of the NFL or ownership. It is in the best interest of all owners to give an impression of financial difficulties entering into negotiations for a CBA or a sweetheart stadium-financing deal. No company on earth drops 97% profit in one year without sounding serious alarm bells. My cynical side says that there is some accounting sleight of hand that shows this to be an off year, with a miraculous gain in the next.

NFL owners have not had to worry about their business operating at a net loss for quite some time now. It's guaranteed profit.

65 toss power trap wrote:When it comes to reporting revenues in an accurate manner, I don't rely on the word of the NFL or ownership. It is in the best interest of all owners to give an impression of financial difficulties entering into negotiations for a CBA or a sweetheart stadium-financing deal. No company on earth drops 97% profit in one year without sounding serious alarm bells. My cynical side says that there is some accounting sleight of hand that shows this to be an off year, with a miraculous gain in the next.

NFL owners have not had to worry about their business operating at a net loss for quite some time now. It's guaranteed profit.

I remember when Bud Adams was trying to get a new stadium deal in Houston he had to report his finances, and it showed that every year he lost money. Seemed like a great sob story, until further inspection revealed that every member of Adams' extended family was an employee of the team, each earning a $1.5M salary.

I think sports owners nowadays can operate in the red and just figure that they can sell the team for twice as much as what they bought it for.

65 toss power trap wrote:When it comes to reporting revenues in an accurate manner, I don't rely on the word of the NFL or ownership. It is in the best interest of all owners to give an impression of financial difficulties entering into negotiations for a CBA or a sweetheart stadium-financing deal.

A few months before MLB nearly went on strike again in 2002, Bud Selig was in full poor-mouthing gear:

https://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/S ... 834841.php

Exactly zero teams have folded and the one team that did move (Montreal) is now being talked as a new home for Tampa Bay's franchise.

65 toss power trap wrote:When it comes to reporting revenues in an accurate manner, I don't rely on the word of the NFL or ownership. It is in the best interest of all owners to give an impression of financial difficulties entering into negotiations for a CBA or a sweetheart stadium-financing deal. No company on earth drops 97% profit in one year without sounding serious alarm bells. My cynical side says that there is some accounting sleight of hand that shows this to be an off year, with a miraculous gain in the next.

NFL owners have not had to worry about their business operating at a net loss for quite some time now. It's guaranteed profit.

Have you actually looked at the Packers' financial report and read Mark Murphy's extended statement about it? The Packers have invested $170 million in Titletown, a non-football project which is going to bring in even more revenue in the future--and revenue which doesn't have to be shared with the other teams in the league. There's no sleight of hand, and the gain in future revenue will not be a miracle, but a return on a substantial investment.

conace21 wrote:

rhickok1109 wrote:
I ask again: Do you think any of those owners actually pour their own money into a football team?

Yes, I do. They certainly have to when they purchase the team; the NFL has limitations as to how much of a purchase can be financed. Once they own the team? It's very possible. The Davis family are probably the least wealthy family in the NFL; it was reported last year that one of the reasons they traded Khalil Mack last year was they didn't have the cash to pay him. Not only would they have had to pay his signing bonus immediately, but the entire guaranteed portion of it would have to be placed in an escrow account. Supposedly, the Raiders didn't have the cash flow to make it happen...maybe they should have paid Gruden $7.5 million a year instead of $10.

If they can't somehow scrape by on guaranteed revenue of a half-billion dollars a year, of which only 47% has to be spent on player salaries, they really ought to sell the team to somebody with more financial sense.

rhickok1109 wrote:

conace21 wrote:

rhickok1109 wrote:
I ask again: Do you think any of those owners actually pour their own money into a football team?

Yes, I do. They certainly have to when they purchase the team; the NFL has limitations as to how much of a purchase can be financed. Once they own the team? It's very possible. The Davis family are probably the least wealthy family in the NFL; it was reported last year that one of the reasons they traded Khalil Mack last year was they didn't have the cash to pay him. Not only would they have had to pay his signing bonus immediately, but the entire guaranteed portion of it would have to be placed in an escrow account. Supposedly, the Raiders didn't have the cash flow to make it happen...maybe they should have paid Gruden $7.5 million a year instead of $10.

If they can't somehow scrape by on guaranteed revenue of a half-billion dollars a year, of which only 47% has to be spent on player salaries, they really ought to sell the team to somebody with more financial sense.

What would someone with more financial sense do? Move the team to a new market?

rhickok1109 wrote:

conace21 wrote:

rhickok1109 wrote:
I ask again: Do you think any of those owners actually pour their own money into a football team?

Yes, I do. They certainly have to when they purchase the team; the NFL has limitations as to how much of a purchase can be financed. Once they own the team? It's very possible. The Davis family are probably the least wealthy family in the NFL; it was reported last year that one of the reasons they traded Khalil Mack last year was they didn't have the cash to pay him. Not only would they have had to pay his signing bonus immediately, but the entire guaranteed portion of it would have to be placed in an escrow account. Supposedly, the Raiders didn't have the cash flow to make it happen...maybe they should have paid Gruden $7.5 million a year instead of $10.

If they can't somehow scrape by on guaranteed revenue of a half-billion dollars a year, of which only 47% has to be spent on player salaries, they really ought to sell the team to somebody with more financial sense.

Art Modell was incompetent enough that even though he had guaranteed TV money and regular crowds of 60-70,000 every year, he moved the Browns. Then, even though he got a sweetheart deal from Baltimore, he had to sell the team 4-5 years later.

As I noted earlier, the Titletown project is moving forward with construction of apartments, mixed use, etc, with the Packers simply following the adage, "You have to spend money to make money." They obviously have plenty of money to throw into this project and the likely profits don't have to be shared with other NFL owners.

The Rodgers' contract situation was a one-year thing, since he got roughly half the money he was due in a single year. His base pay for this year is $20 million, so that's $47 million less the Pack will be paying him.
.

BD Sullivan wrote:

65 toss power trap wrote:When it comes to reporting revenues in an accurate manner, I don't rely on the word of the NFL or ownership. It is in the best interest of all owners to give an impression of financial difficulties entering into negotiations for a CBA or a sweetheart stadium-financing deal.

A few months before MLB nearly went on strike again in 2002, Bud Selig was in full poor-mouthing gear:

https://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/S ... 834841.php

Exactly zero teams have folded and the one team that did move (Montreal) is now being talked as a new home for Tampa Bay's franchise.

What is even more bizarre is there is talk of splitting the Rays games between Montreal and Tampa Bay. I know there was talk of the Bills splitting their games between Buffalo and Toronto (about 100 miles apart), but it's a little different when the cities are 1,500 miles away. And I for one always missed baseball in Montreal. If the Rays do move to Montreal, I hope they reclaim the name Expos.

https://deadspin.com/the-madman-theory- ... 1835887238