NFL Lockout To Begin, Long Court Battles Ahead
by Brandon on Mar 11, 2011 5:00 PM CST
in Green Bay Packers News
Email
Print
UPDATE: The lawsuits started flying immediately.
If you're waiting for the Green Bay Packers to repeat as Super Bowl champions, you'll have to wait longer. The NFL and the players couldn't come to an agreement on a new labor agreement, or on an extension of time, and the NFLPA will file for decertification. Let the lawsuits begin!
Jason Cole has a great article predicting what happens as the players sue the NFL for antitrust violations. Now QB Peyton Manning can sue the NFL and the Colts for placing the franchise tag on him and deny him the right to work for the employer of his choice. Cole expects most of the financial information the NFL refused to release will be released anyway during the discovery in a class-action lawsuit. Now the Packers won't be alone as the only team to publicly disclose their financial information.
Sure the fans are losers here, but this isn't stopping me from receiving a pay check, as it will for countless NFL employees and coaches. Or for players who will miss out on signing bonuses that many players need. And I'm not going to boycott the game: I'm a die-hard fan who will come back whenever they get their house in order. But I keep thinking the NFL owners are the big losers as all these private secrets and lawsuits commence.
105 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Maybe someone can answer this
With the NFLPA decertifying, and the CBA ending at midnight, then there is absolutely no agreement with the players, right?
So doesn’t that mean the owners DO NOT have to share that (appr.) $9B with the players?
So they really don’t need to have a lock-out, right? No agreement, no NFLPA to deal with.
sure
but then there are legal ramifications of the league doing that eg anti-trust litigation
by Glenn'sYank13 on Mar 11, 2011 7:06 PM CST up reply actions
The anti-trust thing
That has to do with having a lock-out, right? If there is no lock-out, then the players can play and earn their money with the team they signed to.
isnt that
where the replacement players would come in then?
by Glenn'sYank13 on Mar 11, 2011 9:11 PM CST up reply actions
No.
This is just an example:
Aaron is under contract with the Packers.
If there is a lock-out, Aaron doesn’t play or get paid. Owners don’t make money.
BUT… with no CBA or union, the owners can now claim ALL of that $9B, thus no need for a lock-out, and Aaron can play for what his contract calls for.
Thus, to me, it seems like there’d be no “anti-trust” because the NFL would be allowing Aaron to work.
No.
I’m pretty sure the anti-trust issue goes way beyond a lockout. It includes the draft, franchise tags, the league minimum pay, team salary caps, licensing, TV agreements, etc.
Basically, the NFL tries to operate as though it’s a single business, but legally it’s actually 32 “competing” businesses. Imagine:
- No draft. Any team can sign any player not under contract at any time.
- No team salary caps. Jerry Jones is free to spend absolutely as much as he wants.
- No NFL TV contract. Each team is free to sign their own contracts for their home games, and keep that money themselves.
And so on. I’m pretty sure that each of those is a potential anti-trust issue.
Eagle Totem - Comprehensive EMU coverage.
F*** you, NFL owners.
You greedy, selfish bastards…
Super Bowl XLV Champions, the Green Bay Packers!
B.J. Raji is My Hero.
by mike_o on Mar 11, 2011 6:17 PM CST reply actions 3 recs
Authority issues?
Maybe you have “bowing down to unjustified authority” issues
53 Bears, 1 Cup
by I voted for Kodos on Mar 12, 2011 9:39 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Just remember that the players are the ones who wouldnt budge on any demands!!!
And the players are the ones who took it out of negotiation and turned it into a legal/lawyer battle!!! The owmers didn’t cut de-certify and bring on the legal proceedings!
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
by Strohman on Mar 12, 2011 12:16 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
The owners opted out of the existing deal...
And what exactly are teams doing that they’re so afraid of the players finding out when they open the books?
Super Bowl XLV Champions, the Green Bay Packers!
B.J. Raji is My Hero.
Cuz the current deal wasn't working!
In 2 years the Packers probably would have been losing money… How is that sustainable?!
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
They made the deal
Not sustainable? Prove it, open up the books. And the owners agreed to a deal and them backed out. If CM3 decides not to play in 2012 unless he’s given a $10 million-a-year contract will you take his side because he signed a contract?
The Packers still made millions last year. The value of most teams is in the $1 billion area, as in tripled in the last 10-15 years.
53 Bears, 1 Cup
by I voted for Kodos on Mar 12, 2011 9:38 AM CST up reply actions
That's what the NFL is arguing
I don’t know that I agree with that. The Packers are a small market team. I doubt that the Giants, Jets, and Cowboys are going to be losing money anytime soon.
"I'm tired of pretending I'm not a rock star from Mars."
The Packers' books
Packers’ books are not indicative of all other teams. First, they’re a much smaller market than New York, Chicago, Dallas, or Houston.
Second, the Packers know their books will be made public, so you can bet your retirement fund it’s going to be completely different from a privately-owned team. Their are many ways to make your team appear unprofitable but to distribute the money so that it will funnel back to you or your family. Maybe you can pay yourself a “consulting fee” that is equivalent to the entire profit of the team/company. Your profit statement would show a net of zero while you’ve already taken home the profits.
Third, teams’ net values have shot through the roofs over the last couple decades. Jerry Richardson bought his team for $208 milion and now it’s valued at close to $938 million (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/30/06nfl_Carolina-Panthers_309456.html). Does that not count as “making money”?
53 Bears, 1 Cup
by I voted for Kodos on Mar 12, 2011 1:50 PM CST up reply actions
Packersrank in the top 15 in revenue and profits over the past 10 years!
I would say thats pretty indicative of what other teams are doing! What the business is worth has nothing to do with how much the players make… Players make money based on certain revenues each year! The equity of the business itself Is immaterial!!!
You got to read and learn more about how businesses work and operate!
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
Where did you get this info Stroh?
How do you know that the packers are ranked so high when the other teams don’t show their books?
"I'm tired of pretending I'm not a rock star from Mars."
READ
Packers said as much when they came out w/ their financial reports! Hell it was reported on APC where they stood! Unlike you I realized this was a definite possibility for the past year or more and have read all I could on the CBA and the Packers profitability!
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
Settle down
I’m just asking you to back up your argument like any reasonable person would do.
"I'm tired of pretending I'm not a rock star from Mars."
So you attack me
but still no proof. Show me the proof…
"I'm tired of pretending I'm not a rock star from Mars."
SHOW ME YOUR MOVES!
Editor at BT Powerhouse, a Big Ten Basketball blog.
Author at Acme Packing Company, a Green Bay Packers blog
Fighting the Battle of Who Could Care Less since 12/29/09
by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Mar 12, 2011 7:15 PM CST up reply actions
I did, couldn't find anything...
I found a ranking system, but it didn’t show any income numbers, I think it may have just been a salary ranking? Pack was 12th in that. No income numbers though.
"I'm tired of pretending I'm not a rock star from Mars."
Why is team equity immaterial?
Owner buys a team for x dollars. Fifteen years later the team is worth 4×. If he sells the team has makes a profit of 3×. How is the owner not making money off of this? Is that not a sufficient return?
53 Bears, 1 Cup
by I voted for Kodos on Mar 12, 2011 8:14 PM CST up reply actions 3 recs
long term, if they lose money every season, that number will drop again. and no one will buy a losing company with expenses that really can’t be cut. If the NFL as a whole’s income is decreasing every year, than I have to side with the owners. If it’s not, then I side with the players. If the owners would just open up their books, it would solve most of the issue.
"I'm tired of pretending I'm not a rock star from Mars."
"drop again"
Not following you here. You mean the value of the team will drop?
But I agree with you, if the owners want me to take their side (not that they care, but if they did) they’ve got to open up their books. There is absolutely no reason to trust them enough to take their word for anything.
53 Bears, 1 Cup
by I voted for Kodos on Mar 13, 2011 12:58 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
You cant pay players w/ equity can you?!!
No… Equity is what you get for having a successful business… But that takes profits which can be used to pay employees!
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
That’s beside the point. The owners will still cash in as their teams’ values increase. Jerry Richardson has increased his personal wealth by $700 million dollars because that’s how much the value of his franchise has gone up. To say that that’s irrelevant to how much the owners can make in the NFL is absurd.
53 Bears, 1 Cup
by I voted for Kodos on Mar 13, 2011 8:20 PM CDT up reply actions
what good does the value of the team increasing
if you are never going to sell the team
Every man must believe in something, I believe I'll have another drink.
It's not their right to run a football team.
If they can’t afford to run the team, then they should sell it (though I doubt there’s many [if any] owners losing money).
13.
Then you pass on the value to your next of kin
Like Sam Walton passing Walmart on to his kids. Now they’re all worth more than $20 billion apiece (and have really perverted his ideals, from what I understand, so it’s kind of like the original Bengals owner and his son).
53 Bears, 1 Cup
by I voted for Kodos on Mar 14, 2011 12:02 AM CDT up reply actions
60% of profits going to employees
represents business and management insanity. Remember, the player costs represent just one aspect of a long line of overhead costs.
Those who are so emotional against the owners (the financial risk-takers) do not understand business management and the difficulties involved with managing costs.
The Packers books provide a blue-print of trends for the small and medium market teams. The trends are clearly unsustainable (that is if you want to keep teams in Green Bay and other smaller markets).
The Packers, as a corporation, represent one of the best bottom-line run teams in the NFL (thanks to our brilliant GM), and their profit-margin trends do not support long-term survival.
"60% of profits going to employees represents insanity . . ."
That really depends on the business. It can’t be said about all businesses across the board. And unless the NFL really drops the ball and loses all their fans it’s hardly a high-risk investment. Annual profits are good and team values have shot through the roof in the last ten years.
53 Bears, 1 Cup
by I voted for Kodos on Mar 14, 2011 5:22 PM CDT up reply actions
I'd argue that both sides have been pretty unwilling to negotiate
Lets not paint it as a black & white issue
While both sides have been very unwilling to negotiate,
The owners have been the ones who have violated the CBA, trying to make more money at the expense of the players.
They then vilified the players’ union for trying to stop this.
I didn't believe it last August, but it turns out that love survives.
State high point count: 3/50
If you are grouchy, irritable, or just plain mean, there will be a $10 charge for putting up with you.
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Mar 12, 2011 9:04 AM CST up reply actions 4 recs
Owners didn't violate anything!
They had an opt out clause and they used it! Otherwise you can’t just break a contract like that!
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
by Strohman on Mar 12, 2011 12:17 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
It's not that simple.
When the CBA was first agreed to, the owners had an agreement to make x% of the total profits the team made (from merchandise sales, ticket sales, concessions, etc.).
Why the CBA expired is because the owners had been increasing the amount of revenue percentage they had been making, to the detriment of the players. When it became apparent to them the Players’ Union was trying to stop them, the owners made it clear to the media that the union was standing in the way of re-certifying the CBA. Since the owners have much more $$$$$ than the players do, they could sway public opinion more.
So for this reason, nearly anyone who hears about this thinks it’s the union causing trouble. The truth is, however, that the owners are the ones causing trouble, and the union is the one trying to keep the CBA intact.
I didn't believe it last August, but it turns out that love survives.
State high point count: 3/50
If you are grouchy, irritable, or just plain mean, there will be a $10 charge for putting up with you.
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Mar 12, 2011 12:32 PM CST up reply actions
It IS that simple...
Owners had an opt out clause and exercised it… Not unlike an NBA player having an opt out clause in their contract and exercising it…
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
I actually think your point is similar to mine.
You are correct in saying the owners opted out of the current CBA. They opted out because they wanted a greater percentage of team profits and the union was getting in the way.
The original CBA gave owners a certain percentage of team profits. They opted out because they wanted more profits and then vilified the union as a scapegoat when the union was trying to keep them abiding by the CBA’s terms.
I wish the owners hadn’t opted out. Now we have the risk of no NFL season next year. All because of their greed.
I didn't believe it last August, but it turns out that love survives.
State high point count: 3/50
If you are grouchy, irritable, or just plain mean, there will be a $10 charge for putting up with you.
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Mar 12, 2011 5:31 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
Don't get me wrong...
I’m not happey they opted out, but they did… That all thats important! Do you think they would have if the current CBA was beneficial to them? I’m not on anyones side in this.. Just a fans… But you have to understand WHY the owners opted out, and its NOT just cuz their greedy!!! Most highly profotable businesses are that way cuz EVERYONE is winning and making money! I think that the owner recognized that the current agreement was gonna lead to lower profits and soon lower player salaries, it things didn’t change!
I dont see what being a “small” ,market team has to do w/ anything if they are in the middle of revenue and profitability is concerned!! And thats were the Packers are! Sure some big market teams, and owners may make more, but some big market teams also make alot less than the Packers! Being in the middle in revenue and profitability makes the Packers a very good example for the rest of the league!!!
Just as much of the greed is on the players!! They didn’t budge a bit in the last 3+ weeks of negotiations!!! And they are the ones who brought this to litigation, instead of negotiations!!! Players are just as culpible as the owners!!!
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
All wrong!!
The CBA was based not on profits, but on revenue!!! Theres a HUGE difference that your not recognizing!!! A HUGE DIFFERENCE!!!
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
CBA is based on revenue
But the crux of the owner’s argument is that the percentage of revenue that the players take home is too big for them to profit. So the argument comes down to profits. And profits can easily be manipulated (see my above post titled “the Packers’ books”).
For owners paying themselves (and thus manipulating profit), see:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE5DD143EF931A35754C0A964958260
53 Bears, 1 Cup
by I voted for Kodos on Mar 12, 2011 8:43 PM CST up reply actions
This is the link I so desperately needed in my posts.
Thanks!
I didn't believe it last August, but it turns out that love survives.
State high point count: 3/50
If you are grouchy, irritable, or just plain mean, there will be a $10 charge for putting up with you.
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Mar 13, 2011 11:20 AM CDT up reply actions
a "lock-out" though
would be far less devastating to the packers than it would be to a team with whiny, soft-skinned, cry baby fans such as the vikings. at least the packers have an offense already and a QB. the longer this all goes, the less amount of time the vikings have to get themselves in order. the silver lining.
by Glenn'sYank13 on Mar 11, 2011 9:21 PM CST up reply actions
Millionaires and Billionaires
To the millionaires I say this: I understand your concerns regarding your health, but you are getting paid well and doing a job that millions of Americans would love to have. Yes, your life may be shortened if you play 10 years in the NFL, but the money you make should allow you to retire way more than 10 years before most Americans.
To the billionaires I say this: How much money do you need to make each year? Jerry Richardson bought his franchise for a little over $250 million dollars. It is now valued at over three times that amount. Your business talents (to raise revenue) is impressive, but you are more replaceable than the athletes who play the game. What do you think people would rather see – a well-run business with mediocre athletes, or a mediocrely-run business with elite athletes?
53 Bears, 1 Cup
by I voted for Kodos on Mar 11, 2011 7:34 PM CST reply actions
The mediocre business thing doesn't work either
Just look at the NBA…
"I'm tired of pretending I'm not a rock star from Mars."
If Donald Sterling hasn't been removed yet
he’ll NEVER be removed.
Editor at BT Powerhouse, a Big Ten Basketball blog.
Author at Acme Packing Company, a Green Bay Packers blog
Fighting the Battle of Who Could Care Less since 12/29/09
by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Mar 11, 2011 9:15 PM CST up reply actions
Or MLB.
All they care about is profiting off the fans.
I didn't believe it last August, but it turns out that love survives.
State high point count: 3/50
If you are grouchy, irritable, or just plain mean, there will be a $10 charge for putting up with you.
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Mar 12, 2011 9:11 AM CST up reply actions
Didn't mean it quite that way
What I mean is a mediocre-run business in the sense of “they sell Pepsi products but they could sell Coke and make 5% profit”, or “They’re only charging $75 a seat and the stadium sells out. With demand that high they could sell out with $100 seats.”
53 Bears, 1 Cup
by I voted for Kodos on Mar 12, 2011 8:36 PM CST up reply actions
I hate it when this argument comes up
Yes, your life may be shortened if you play 10 years in the NFL, but the money you make should allow you to retire way more than 10 years before most Americans.
So $ > living?
They’re only millionaires and billionaires because of the country’s demand for NFL football. Wanna know why soccer players get paid way less in this country? ‘Cause we don’t give a damn about soccer!
"Finished putting together an Excel spreadsheet at work? BELT. Finally managed to open that uncooperative jar of mayonnaise? BELT. We're all champions in our own ways, my friends." - Frank Madden, BrewHoop
by Mitchell Maurer on Mar 11, 2011 9:22 PM CST up reply actions
being compensated for a dangerous job
is hardly unique to sports.
by Glenn'sYank13 on Mar 11, 2011 9:33 PM CST up reply actions 2 recs
being compensated for more
money, i should say. it has sweetened the deal of working in shit conditions, and deadly ones, many times in human history.
by Glenn'sYank13 on Mar 11, 2011 9:33 PM CST up reply actions
It’s called “hazard pay”
53 Bears, 1 Cup
by I voted for Kodos on Mar 13, 2011 5:10 PM CDT up reply actions
Nobody is forcing players to play!
They know the dangers to their health and life… The players are fully aware of what thgey are getting into when they chose to be football players!!
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
Let me ask you a question
Would you trade ten years of life for never having to work past 33? I would. That’s still 35 years of retirement.
I work 40+ hours a week. My job really isn’t bad. But I still look forward to vacation. And I’d be willing to make some sacrifices to have a 35-year vacation.
53 Bears, 1 Cup
by I voted for Kodos on Mar 12, 2011 9:47 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Interesting sidenotes
Von Miller was part of the class action lawsuit filed for anti-trust violations. I guess he wants his training camp…
A positive that I’ve been hearing is that the league is in a real bind. The district court judge has ruled in favor of the players way more times than the owners, and the owners will have to reveal their financial records if this goes to court. So release them now and get a deal done or let this go to court and possibly get burned and alienate fans?
who knows why he was included
it could be as simple as showing there is real harm for future players even those not “directly” in the league yet.
by Glenn'sYank13 on Mar 11, 2011 9:42 PM CST up reply actions
Dude if this is for future players...
I think I have the potential to play in the NFL!!! Sign me up!!! MAKE THIS A CLASS ACTION FOR ALL THE GUYS WHO COULD HAVE PLAYED BUT THEY HURT SOMETHING IN COLLEGE…WINK WINK!!! (aka the guy who uses that line in the bar to pick up the 10 who is actually a 2 goggles).
by Bush League All Star on Mar 12, 2011 1:58 AM CST up reply actions 3 recs
Are you kidding..
Why stop there… I would have been the best QB the NFL has seen if I hadn’t been injured at BIRTH!!! LMAO
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
You were injured at birth?
That explains a lot.
(I’m just kidding Strohman, please don’t take this seriously. It’s just that you really set this one up to be knocked out of the park)
53 Bears, 1 Cup
by I voted for Kodos on Mar 12, 2011 9:43 AM CST up reply actions
Thanks for laughing
I’m glad you got a kick out of it. I tried to resist, but I figured someone was gonna do it, it might as well be done with a disclaimer.
53 Bears, 1 Cup
by I voted for Kodos on Mar 12, 2011 1:52 PM CST up reply actions
well since he was at the combine,
I’d say that gives him standing to argue he would suffer injury by a “lock out”
by Glenn'sYank13 on Mar 12, 2011 10:43 AM CST up reply actions
I dont think
you understand how class action lawsuits works….
by Glenn'sYank13 on Mar 12, 2011 10:44 AM CST up reply actions
You can bet that every decision that is made is going to be appealed
And somje will be reversed or altered… No way of knowing how each appeal is going to be determined!
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
the owners are the bad guys and the losers
whatever. just make sure i have my football when fall comes around again
I hope Kotsay gets hit by a dump truck and slips into a coma where he is stuck forever in Baseball purgatory having to bat against a three-headed, six-armed Lefty Hydra consisting of Billy Wagner, Damaso Marte, and Randy Johnson. - Shoeless In SC
by blackoutsox on Mar 12, 2011 1:53 AM CST reply actions 1 recs
All this is going to do,
If it lasts to next season, is cost all the players a chance at glory and the fans from seeing what they love.
Thanks, owners, for the following.
I didn't believe it last August, but it turns out that love survives.
State high point count: 3/50
If you are grouchy, irritable, or just plain mean, there will be a $10 charge for putting up with you.
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Mar 12, 2011 9:06 AM CST reply actions 1 recs
I would think Peyton Manning would be happy he will have more time to make
those awful product endorsement commercials.
"It's our money," owner Arte Moreno said.
Owners open books
Could in your opinion,the owners opening their books,if it ever comes to that,threaten their stance with new stadiums in the future?
Meaning if they are making a wad of money,and the taxpayers see that,why in the world would the txpayers pay for new stadiums?
I think that would be stupid on the owners part.
Now wise up settle this crap and get back to work,the owners act like Democrats from Indiana and Wisc. They cant get their way so they leave the state.
If you are an owner and dont like the system then SELL your team and bank the leftover equity and keep your pie holes shut.
Just sayin
by buddrow53 on Mar 12, 2011 11:49 AM CST reply actions 2 recs
Taxpayers should never ever under any circumstances
pay for a stadium for any professional sports team
Every man must believe in something, I believe I'll have another drink.
by pjpaulus on Mar 12, 2011 2:02 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Disagree
Cities make a lot of revenue indirectly off those teams through the bars, hotels, restaurants, etc. For example, if the Super Bowl isn’t played this year, the city of Indianapolis will lose out on upwards of 500 million dollars just for that week. The government pays a lot for those stadiums, but in most cases it’s better to do that for the local economy than to let the team walk.
"I'm tired of pretending I'm not a rock star from Mars."
meh
maybe i was a little extreme but every time i hear about teams wanting taxpayers to pay for a stadium i think of the florida marlins and how they raped the taxpayers down in florida
Every man must believe in something, I believe I'll have another drink.
Some teams do that
but a lot of teams are actually beneficial to the economy of the area
"I'm tired of pretending I'm not a rock star from Mars."
NFL revenue
NFL revenue is up to what 9 billion a year? Didn’t Jerry Jones build a billion dollar stadium without any help? Last I heard Packers have about a 20 million dollar profit every year.
A team should be able to look at their stadium and say in ten years we will need a new stadium and come up with the funding for it. Its not like a team suddenly realizes their stadium is crap. Part of owning the team is having a suitable stadium for long term success.
Every man must believe in something, I believe I'll have another drink.
2 oe 3 years ago they made 20M profit...
But if I remember, its gone from 20M 2 years ago, to about 10M and this past year about 5M… You don’t see the problem in that?!! THAT’s Why the owners opted out… It wasn’t going to be sustainable profit for the next 5+ years… Once all the debt, from new stadiums is paid off, it might change, but that stadium debt is a major problem that all teams are in the process of paying off… Thats what they want the extra 1B for… To pay down the debt… And believe me, if they cant continue to pay down the debt, the Players AND the fans are going to pay the price!!! Player benefit alot from the increased revenue the new stadiums generate!!!
You've been Stroh'd™!!!
Packers' profits
went down because player costs went up AND because their investments lost money AND because they didn’t sell as much merchandise after Favre left town (keep in mind this is before our recent Super Bowl victory).
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4275519 (don’t worry that it’s ESPN, they got it from Associated Press)
53 Bears, 1 Cup
by I voted for Kodos on Mar 12, 2011 8:12 PM CST up reply actions
The 2008 season was a killer.
Regardless of offensive stats, the 6-10 team had not only had its former starting QB intentionally try to divide the fanbase, but also had an awful defense.
Editor at BT Powerhouse, a Big Ten Basketball blog.
Author at Acme Packing Company, a Green Bay Packers blog
Fighting the Battle of Who Could Care Less since 12/29/09
by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Mar 12, 2011 9:09 PM CST up reply actions
They sold lots of merchandise in 2007
In part because, according to the article I linked to, so many people bought Favre gear the last few years of his career because they thought it would be his final year.
53 Bears, 1 Cup
by I voted for Kodos on Mar 12, 2011 10:18 PM CST up reply actions
Does anyone know if the 2010 numbers have been released?
Been looking and haven’t found it yet. Probably won’t be released until april and tax season is done is my guess.
Every man must believe in something, I believe I'll have another drink.
Then why won't they open the books?
Isn’t that what the players wanted? If they show they really need the books weren’t the players willing to consider letting them have the extra $1,000,000,000?
And I admit I haven’t followed this as much as some most likely have, so this is a serious question. I may be wrong about they players being willing, I just think I read that somewhere a while back.
Also, why should the players trust the owners? It seems like the owners say they want an 18 game season because that’s what the fans want. But from the few polls I"ve seen the fans want a 16 game season. I know 1 poll at ESPN is hardly proof, but the last one I saw there at it 75%-25% for 16 games over 18. While iy may not be accurate, I think that large a difference means something. Plus I don’t know of any of my friends that are also NFL fans that want 18. The main gripe I saw was season ticket holders not wanting to be made to pay for the preseason home games at full price in order to get season tickets. But this seemed to have turned into taking away 2 preaseason games and making them regular season games, for no extra money for the players.
So now I see the owners offered to open the books for the past 5 years
and the players now want 10? And another thing I read was that the 2 sides are off by less than $200 million? Does either side really want to settle this? The more I read the less I know who to side with. The only reason I don’t wish for them to lose an entire season is all the people that have jobs at the stadiums, or some other way related to the games, that would lose too much of their income.
I think that was just one team that offered to show its books
And the obvious question is: why just this team? Did the owners decide to do a token “opening of a team’s books” to show that they aren’t making enough money? It seems a little suspicious to me. There’s just no transparency in this, and it leads me to believe the team (49ers, wasn’t it?) was selected by the owners because they are one of the least-profitable teams.
53 Bears, 1 Cup
by I voted for Kodos on Mar 13, 2011 11:57 PM CDT up reply actions
Revenue is different from income (profit)
Revenue doesn’t take into account expenses. Net income (also known as PROFIT) is revenues minus expenses.
As Stroh said, 20 mil was a few years ago. Those numbers have dropped. Whether or not all teams are in the same boat is debatable, but the Packers numbers support the owners’ side
"I'm tired of pretending I'm not a rock star from Mars."
Apples, oranges
The Packers’ bookkeeping only supports the owners’ argument if the other 31 teams in the league operate under the same business model as the Packers.
To add to that
The owners have been operating with the knowledge that they don’t have to open their books, so they are much freer to operate without public scrutiny than the Packers. The Packers have to be clean because they know everyone will see what they’ve been doing.
There’s an old saying, “Sunshine is the best disinfectant,” meaning that doing things out in the open, where everyone knows what and how it is being done, is the best way to get rid of corruption.
The owners’ insistence to not open the books reminds me of the way I felt when O.J. fled. It went from, “why would he kill the mother of his children?” to “why is running?”. I hate the saying, “if he’s not doing anything illegal he doesn’t have anything to worry about,” but now’s my chance to throw it back at all those who always accept that authority knows and does best and all us working-class types just carry out their master plan for the betterment of society.
53 Bears, 1 Cup
by I voted for Kodos on Mar 13, 2011 4:12 PM CDT up reply actions
"It's not like a team suddenly realizes their stadium is crap..."
…unless you’re Minnesota.
Super Bowl XLV Champions, the Green Bay Packers!
B.J. Raji is My Hero.
by mike_o on Mar 12, 2011 8:24 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Isn't everything there crap anyway?
Go Suns, Packers, Jays, and Huskers!
Green Bay Packers: Super Bowl XLV Champions!!!!
They have a stadium?
I didn't believe it last August, but it turns out that love survives.
State high point count: 3/50
If you are grouchy, irritable, or just plain mean, there will be a $10 charge for putting up with you.
by Vermont Cubs Fan on Mar 13, 2011 11:21 AM CDT up reply actions
They have a team worth a damn?
Editor at BT Powerhouse, a Big Ten Basketball blog.
Author at Acme Packing Company, a Green Bay Packers blog
Fighting the Battle of Who Could Care Less since 12/29/09
by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Mar 13, 2011 1:20 PM CDT up reply actions
Stadium? Yes.
Roof? No.
53 Bears, 1 Cup
by I voted for Kodos on Mar 13, 2011 4:12 PM CDT up reply actions
I don't know which, if either, side to support
And the only thing I can really do as a fan is to not but the Packers Super Bowl merchandise I was going to. I don’t attend games in person. I don’t want to support the NFL right now.
Silver lining
If football is never played again, the Packers are the all-time champs.
Greinke: "It’s not about the guacamole itself. I just don’t want to let them win."
by GoGregGo on Mar 14, 2011 11:38 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Acme Packing Company
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
