The Packers Financial Report Is Released

by Brandon on Jul 15, 2010 8:00 AM CDT in Green Bay Packers News

While it's release is always news for the Green Bay Packers, the team is overshadowed this year because the financial report is likely to be used by the owners to demand the players take a pay cut, and by the players to show how much money the owners are making. Team president Mark Murphy is already pointing out the growing player costs, while I'm sure the players will point out that the team increased their gross revenue and net income.

Details from the Journal Sentinel:

Total team revenue was $258 million, a record, up from $248 million.

Expenses, especially player costs, increased markedly. Operating expenses jumped to $248 million, up from $228 million. Of that amount, $161 million went to player costs, up from $139 million...

According to team officials, over a four-year period, while player costs have gone up 11.8%, revenue has only gone up 5.5%.

According to the unnamed team officials, four years ago revenue was approximately $245 million, with player costs of approximately $145 million, which produced income from operations of around $100 million, to $258 million less $161 million equals $97 million. Going from $100 million to $97 million doesn't sound like a crisis.

And the teams can negotiate the salaries! If you want to internally cap player costs at $140 million, go ahead and do it.

Of course the Packers financial situation doesn't look like all the other teams. For example the Packers waiting list will never be emptied in my lifetime, but the Jaguars just can't sell enough tickets. No league is ever going to smooth out the differences between the rich and poor teams, but the NFL does it as well as any of them. These numbers are going to have to be the benchmark unless the NFL wants to finally open their books and prove the players wrong.

If the owners lockout the players over this, I'm going to be pissed. This is nothing for us to lose any football games over.

Tweet Comment 18 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Point is...

… they made a little less than10 million in spite of the fact that TT rarely pursues high priced free agents and regularly keeps the team well under the cap. If he actually spent cash in free agency and if this team lived near the cap line, those numbers would look a lot uglier. The owners are right. The contract terms they’re currently playing under is jeopardizing the profitability and thus the competitive balance of the league. I don’t want a lockout either, but I’ll take a lockout over having the NFL turn into a have/have not league like the MLB.

What begins in fear usually ends in folly.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Jul 15, 2010 8:54 AM CDT reply actions 4 recs

On top of which

you have to look at the trend lines. They’re getting ready to negotiate the CBA for the next 6 years. Follow those trend lines out six years and you have $278 million of revenue and $194 million in player costs — nearly 70% of the revenue would be going to player costs.

Then consider further the point above by TSSC, that due to TT’s strategy, these player costs are probably well below those of a lot of teams. Then consider the Packers’ fan base, ticket sales, etc., which probably range from middle-of-the-pack (in a down year for the Packers) to near the top (in a good year for the Packers). All that suggests that the Packers are probably a lot better off than most teams.

by cmadler on Jul 15, 2010 9:14 AM CDT up reply actions

^This^

also

And the teams can negotiate the salaries! If you want to internally cap player costs at $140 million, go ahead and do it.

So the team must choose between being profitable or being competitive?
I would rather not see the packers turn into the pirates

by Jeo on Jul 15, 2010 9:14 AM CDT up reply actions

Big Money Does Not Equal Winning

It’s all about being smart, not being willing to spend. You can’t starve a team of money to retain talented players, but spending $140 vs. $160 million isn’t exactly a hunger strike. And there are far too many examples of teams recklessly spending and getting nothing for it.

If the Packers were really concerned about player costs for the next fiscal year, they could have decided against a contract extension for LB Brandon Chillar and against the franchise tag for DE Ryan Pickett. The team is certainly better with them then without, but those two players are going to receive about $16 million next season (which is about 10% of their total player costs) and I don’t think many people would think less of the Packers chances next season without those two.

If the team was really concerned about player costs, they could have found some corners to cut and they would still be fielding a contending 2010 team.

by Brandon on Jul 15, 2010 11:58 PM CDT up reply actions

I agree but where does it end?

player costs are on the increase with revenue also increasing but at a slower pace. So for 2010 that money might not matter but in 5 years when instead of 20 mil its 60 mil and the difference between 5-6 average players and good players

by Jeo on Jul 16, 2010 1:29 PM CDT up reply actions

Exodus

Poor sportsbiz owners just barely hanging on having other people (you!) pay for their capital. Those socialist wealth-sharing plans are such a burden & oh the shame of taking depreciation on their workers. These guys make such a sacrifice to stay in sportsbiz. I weep for Steinbrenner & Jerry Jones. It’s so sad the way they are treated.

No wonder there’s a mass exodus from ownership & those sinking franchise prices. Right?

by uglyfatpimplynerd on Jul 15, 2010 8:19 PM CDT up reply actions

Yes. That's exactly what I meant.

Do you own any stocks? If so, how much did you make in dividends from them last year? How about a rare baseball or football card? If so, how much income did it generate in it’s plastic case? How about your house? How much income did that generate last year?

Your argument is specious. Owners could be losing money on a year to year basis and it would still be smart to own a sports franchise, because the limited number of franchises available has resulted in astronomical increases in the value of the franchise. So an owner, like Red McCombs, can buy the Vikings and essentially break even every year for 10 years, and it’s still a good idea to own the team because he can sell it for more than he bought it. Just like (at least theoretically) your stocks, baseball cards or your house.

But you already knew that, didn’t you?

But this isn’t about what’s good for owners. It’s about what’s good for me. The owners look out for themselves, the players look out for themselves, why shouldn’t I at least hope that the outcome of the current labor dispute work out well for me, or fans in general? My interest is that the NFL remain competitive, as it has throughout my lifetime, so teams can succeed or fail on the field based on their ability to acquire and develop talent and perform during games. If the players win this labor dispute, the financial margin for error for many teams will continue to shrink, the cap will be gone, and the NFL will run the risk of becoming like the MLB: where teams in all but a few places essentially serve as farm clubs for their bigger, richer competitors.

I don’t want that to happen. I’m not weeping for Jerry Jones. Jones is going to be flush regardless of whether the new contract rolls back player compensation. But the Packers won’t be. The owners winning helps hold Jerry Jones and guys like him in check. If you’re done being a sarcastic douche-bag and actually thought a little bit, you might have realized that on your own. And save your fear-mongering use of words like “socialist” for people foolish enough to fall for that kind of garbage. The notion that I should want the players to win this dispute, trash the salary cap system so they can make more money through their COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (talk about “socialism”!), will somehow be a victory for capitalism is just about the dumbest damn thing I’ve ever heard.

What begins in fear usually ends in folly.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Jul 15, 2010 8:40 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

Keep up the good fight Ted! That rant was something of beauty.

by PackApologist on Jul 15, 2010 11:46 PM CDT up reply actions

My first thought...

was that we were no where near using all of our cap space. On top of that, we have a nice stadium that is near the middle of the Pack for bringing in money so if they can’t make big profits, that spells trouble. I wonder if this is a factor in us not going after big FA too then. We don’t have pockets to dig into like every other team.

by TrevorR on Jul 15, 2010 9:17 AM CDT reply actions

except for this year

thompson shelled out about 30 million in gauranteed money on collins, cliffy, and pickett, so he spent his fair share of money this year resigning players.

by hermitcrab on Jul 15, 2010 4:23 PM CDT reply actions

Yeah but if you talk to the TT detractors they would not see that as spending big money on FA’s. They want to see the Pack sign the Haynesworths and Peppers of the league year in and year out.

by PackApologist on Jul 15, 2010 6:39 PM CDT up reply actions

That

has always been one of the main points of not going after other teams’ over-priced, albeit talented, castoffs, even when we had so-o-o-o much cap room, crabbie!

-
The glass is more than half-full.

by NorthStarr on Jul 16, 2010 1:30 AM CDT up reply actions

Profit Margin

The Packers Net Profit last year was 5M on 258M in gross income… If you think about thats about 2% profit margin… Thats amounts to a hill of beans!!! If any of you own a business tell me what your projected profit margins are… I would venture to guess its a hell of alot more than that!!!

This is not to say that this is not at least somewhat due to the owners not agreeing on things in their own ranks. I read recently on ProFootballTalk, that player salaries have risen largely because they couldn’t agree on what constituted the applicable revenue. It used to be some revenue was not counted, and w/in the past 3 yrs, they changed it to account for 59% of gross revenue, instead of 65% of an adjusted revenue.

Either way, the pendulum in the past decade has swung dramatically in the players favor!!!

by Strohman on Jul 15, 2010 9:28 PM CDT reply actions

the good news...

is that ANY profit we do have stays in the team! Most teams, that profit would line the pockets of some billionaire but here it all stays in on the team!

by TrevorR on Jul 16, 2010 7:34 AM CDT up reply actions

Viking fan here

I have written several fanposts about the NFL labor issue for the Daily Norseman and how it affects the Vikings and the NFL overall.
Here is my first post on the subject back in February

Since the Packers have the only publicly disclosed financial reports I like other fans are trying to understand those financial reports. However, I can’t find the reports. I have read different articles that refer to certain numbers but have yet to find an income statement or balance sheet. I was hoping one of you here at APC could help. If you know a website where I can find these documents, please let me know.

The reason this is important is because neither side of the labor issue is really giving the straight skinny to the fans. I was hoping to do my own analysis of the situation.

Thanks for any help. I am pretty well versed on the issues concerning payroll, cap space, and contract restrictions. If I can be of any help to anyone in APC land feel free to ask.
Thanks in advance for any help you might be able to give.

"Is it normal to wake up in the morning in a sweat because you can't wait to beat another human's guts out?"
Joe Kapp

by lifelongvike on Jul 18, 2010 7:00 AM CDT reply actions

financials

I would start by reading the articles regarding it and trying to piece together the numbers yourself. Write every number down, order them and try to make some sense of them. Try to contact the Packers… You can get the phone number or email at Packers.com. You might also try Andrew Brant who is part of the website at NationalFootballPost.com. Having been a high ranking member of the Packers, he might know of access to the numbers. Beyond that I would think any shareholder who attended the meetings might have been given some of the financials to follow while at the meetings.

Any shareholders out there that attended the Shareholders meetings… Were you given any of the financial numbers???

If you don’t mind doing a little leg work, I would imagine you should be able to track down something….

by Strohman on Jul 18, 2010 7:41 AM CDT up reply actions

Probably need to make friends with an actual shareholder

Though the Packers are a public company, they aren’t publicly traded. I’m in no way pretending to be a securities lawyer, but my guess is that since the stock isn’t on a public exchange they don’t have to disclose it as widely. Maybe they only have to release it to actual shareholders.

The numbers that were recently released prior to the Packers shareholders annual meeting was only a preview for the media. I don’t expect the media received a hard copy of the complete financial report either.

Back in the 1960s they put the financials in the game program. My guess is that if you find a true copy of the 2009-2010 report it will look something like that 1961 report with some detail but probably not as much as you’d like.

by Brandon on Jul 18, 2010 10:46 PM CDT up reply actions

Thanks

I thought perhaps I was just not looking in the right place. I’m sure the figures will be posted sometime. Even if they don’t have to be filed with the SEC they are public and will be posted sometime. At least I know it wasn’t just my research skills.
I will just have to be more patient.

"Is it normal to wake up in the morning in a sweat because you can't wait to beat another human's guts out?"
Joe Kapp

by lifelongvike on Jul 19, 2010 5:48 AM CDT up reply actions