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

    • Okay so I am reading something in The Athletic and it says that Jones had to pass through waivers. So I don't know. I looked this stuff up when we were number one there all offseason and I thought it said 4 years in the league got you vested, as they call it.  Vested gets you out of waivers as I understood it. I probably got something wrong, but when I think about the slack quality of journalism these days I wonder about that. So I went and looked, again. Well, well.  For everyone: "When a player has accrued at least four seasons in the NFL, they are considered a vested veteran. When these vested veterans get cut, they are released and their contract is terminated. When a vested veteran is released, they are an unrestricted free agent that can sign with any NFL team, and the team that released them doesn’t need to provide any additional compensation." It runs it all down here, where the quotes came from: https://www.profootballnetwork.com/waived-vs-released-nfl/ As far as Jones, the team turned down his 5th year option so I knew that meant he had 4 years in, because they re-signed him anyway, after turning down the much cheaper extra year.  The Athletic is owned by the New York Times so I shouldn't be surprised. That paper was an institution once upon a time but they let their standards go.
    • Well, we got our answer on Army today.
    • Not a chance the SEC could compete with the NFL.  In the large cities that are not in the Southeast, (LA, NYC, Chicago, SF) College football is an afterthought.  
×
×
  • Create New...