Cooley not happy with the way Rookies are paid...

[GSPODS]

:hmm: As you say there are only 100,000 seats. There are also only 8 games a year and playoffs. There are so many people who dedicate so much to get there. So few make it and even fewer make real money. Owners spend hundreds of millions or now over a billion dollars to buy a team with a huge operating cost. And it is screwing the fans to see that much talent and that must investment for so few games. You don't want to pay what they charge even though others will. The players should just play for what you think they are worth, the owners make what you think they deserve so you can pay less at the game and have more money to spend on other things because you don't want to pay them what the market says their product is worth. Again, where is the source of greed in this scenario? What do you think?

One minor correction. If we're talking 100,000 seats then we are only speaking about home games. There are only eight of those guaranteed.
So, the owners have to make $150 Million just to cover team payroll. Adding in other expenses, the owners have to make $25 Million per home game just to break even. $25 Million divided by 100,000 seats is an average ticket price of $250. And yet tickets are available for $99. If team owners were really out to screw the fans, there would be no game tickets cheaper than $250.

The owners have other revenue sources, most notably network TV contracts. I don't remember any numbers, but my guess is that they make enough from TV to meet their payroll.

I think the TV falls under the Revenue Sharing portion of the CBA. Somewhere around 60% is split between the franchises. The remaining 40% or so goes to the NFL. 60% of $4 Billion sounds like a lot of money until it's divided 32 ways. @ $125,000,000 per Franchise. That barely makes NFL player payrolls before taxes and deductions. 35% tax bracket knocks the figure down to $81,250,000.00. Revenue sharing falls under Capital Gains, so the tax may even be higher. While $80 Million is nothing to sneeze at, it costs about three times that figure to operate an NFL Franchise for a season.

[yupchagee]

:hmm: As you say there are only 100,000 seats. There are also only 8 games a year and playoffs. There are so many people who dedicate so much to get there. So few make it and even fewer make real money. Owners spend hundreds of millions or now over a billion dollars to buy a team with a huge operating cost. And it is screwing the fans to see that much talent and that must investment for so few games. You don't want to pay what they charge even though others will. The players should just play for what you think they are worth, the owners make what you think they deserve so you can pay less at the game and have more money to spend on other things because you don't want to pay them what the market says their product is worth. Again, where is the source of greed in this scenario? What do you think?

One minor correction. If we're talking 100,000 seats then we are only speaking about home games. There are only eight of those guaranteed.
So, the owners have to make $150 Million just to cover team payroll. Adding in other expenses, the owners have to make $25 Million per home game just to break even. $25 Million divided by 100,000 seats is an average ticket price of $250. And yet tickets are available for $99. If team owners were really out to screw the fans, there would be no game tickets cheaper than $250.

The owners have other revenue sources, most notably network TV contracts. I don't remember any numbers, but my guess is that they make enough from TV to meet their payroll.

I think the TV falls under the Revenue Sharing portion of the CBA. Somewhere around 60% is split between the franchises. The remaining 40% or so goes to the NFL. 60% of $4 Billion sounds like a lot of money until it's divided 32 ways. @ $125,000,000 per Franchise. That barely makes NFL player payrolls before taxes and deductions. 35% tax bracket knocks the figure down to $81,250,000.00. Revenue sharing falls under Capital Gains, so the tax may even be higher. While $80 Million is nothing to sneeze at, it costs about three times that figure to operate an NFL Franchise for a season.

Revenue isn't taxed, profit is. Payroll is a normal business expense. The fact that it is shared has absolutely nothing to do with anything. According to your numbers, TV revenue covers payroll, leaving live gate & merchandising for other expenses & profit.

[RayNAustin]

:hmm: As you say there are only 100,000 seats. There are also only 8 games a year and playoffs. There are so many people who dedicate so much to get there. So few make it and even fewer make real money. Owners spend hundreds of millions or now over a billion dollars to buy a team with a huge operating cost. And it is screwing the fans to see that much talent and that must investment for so few games. You don't want to pay what they charge even though others will. The players should just play for what you think they are worth, the owners make what you think they deserve so you can pay less at the game and have more money to spend on other things because you don't want to pay them what the market says their product is worth. Again, where is the source of greed in this scenario? What do you think?

One minor correction. If we're talking 100,000 seats then we are only speaking about home games. There are only eight of those guaranteed.
So, the owners have to make $150 Million just to cover team payroll. Adding in other expenses, the owners have to make $25 Million per home game just to break even. $25 Million divided by 100,000 seats is an average ticket price of $250. And yet tickets are available for $99. If team owners were really out to screw the fans, there would be no game tickets cheaper than $250.

That's exactly what this is worth...2 cents. The Redskins have well over 300 Million in annual revenue. I think that covers the 150 Mil payroll with some change left over to gas up Danny's jet.

There's more revenue than just ticket price, and far more expensive seats than the $99 ones. The concessions alone during games is astronomical (last time I checked, hot dogs were $5 (they cost .15), and a Beer was $7 (cost about .30) a coke cost $3 (cost .10) Plus Redskins labeled merchandise.....the fans pay for all of that. Then there is the network revenue, advertising revenue, radio revenue.

All told, the Danny is making a fortune....not a small fortune, a large one.

But since you think they are undercharging, next time you go to a game, give the parking lot $70 instead of $35. When you get a beer, just give em a 20 and tell them to keep the change. And when you buy that $99 seat, give them $250 so that they can afford to pay the players.

PS: Given your loose use of facts and figures (See the Freeney salary dissertation that was total bologna) I wouldn't start getting into the capital gains tax issues for revenue sharing if I were you....or at least I wouldn't give any credence to what you have to say about anything.

[RayNAustin]

But this is exactly why gas is $3.50 a gal. and why it will be $5-$6 by this time next year.

This is why it costs $300 for two people to go to a damned football game and have a hot dog and a coke. Because so many will bend over backwards to justify why it is so reasonable for a Billionaire to squeeze every dime he can out of the surfs for tickets and concessions and still have the nerve to charge $35 to park for 3 hours.

And I hope the prices of all of it quadruple. Because anyone who likes being squeezed deserves to be squeezed dry.

[ChillWill]

I wonder who Fred Davis's roomate was at the minicamp. I wonder if it was ey or Yoder.

[GSPODS]

That's exactly what this is worth...2 cents. The Redskins have well over 300 Million in annual revenue. I think that covers the 150 Mil payroll with some change left over to gas up Danny's jet.

All told, the Danny is making a fortune....not a small fortune, a large one.

PS: Given your loose use of facts and figures (See the Freeney salary dissertation that was total bologna) I wouldn't start getting into the capital gains tax issues for revenue sharing if I were you....or at least I wouldn't give any credence to what you have to say about anything.

And I wouldn't be the Pot calling the Kettle Black. Loose use of facts and figures? What about multiple incorrect usage of specific tax code terminology?

How about correctly using and understanding the term "revenue?"
Your $300 Million "revenue" figure fails to account for ANY costs of goods or services, operating expenses, interest or taxes.

Revenue - The amount of money that a company actually receives during a specific period, including discounts and deductions for returned merchandise. It is the "top line" or "gross income" figure from which costs are subtracted to determine net income.

Profit Margin - A ratio of profitability calculated as net income divided by revenues, or net profits divided by sales. It measures how much out of every dollar of sales a company actually keeps in earnings.

After Tax Profit Margin - A financial performance ratio, calculated by dividing net income after taxes by net sales. A company's after-tax profit margin is important because it tells investors the percentage of money a company actually earns per dollar of sales. This ratio is interpreted in the same way as profit margin - the after-tax profit margin is simply more stringent because it takes taxes into account.

Net Margin - The ratio of net profits to revenues for a company or business segment - typically expressed as a percentage – that shows how much of each dollar earned by the company is translated into profits. Net margins can generally be calculated as:

Net Profit (Revenue - Cost Of Goods & Services - Operating Expenses - Interest and Taxes) divided by Revenue = Net Profit Margin

Net Income is calculated by starting with a company's total revenue. From this, the cost of sales, along with any other expenses that the company incurred during the period, is removed to reach earnings before tax. Tax is deducted from this amount to reach the net income number. Net income, like other accounting measures, is susceptible to manipulation through such things as aggressive revenue recognition or by hiding expenses. When basing an investment decision on net income numbers, it is important to review the quality of the numbers that were used to arrive at this value.

Net Operating Income - A company's operating income after operating expenses are deducted, but before income taxes and interest are deducted. If this is a positive value, it is referred to as net operating income, while a negative value is called a net operating loss (NOL).

Now that I've addressed basic terminology associated with the Tax Code, is "revenue" the correct term? If so, what are the more relevant Net Profit, Net Income, Net Profit Margin, and Net Operating Income figures? And is there a source for these figures, because all of THN can play the "We don't trust your information" and the "your full of crap" games.

[GSPODS]

Revenue isn't taxed, profit is. Payroll is a normal business expense. The fact that it is shared has absolutely nothing to do with anything. According to your numbers, TV revenue covers payroll, leaving live gate & merchandising for other expenses & profit.

Revenue is taxed. See Above.

"Internal Revenue Service" should have been a dead giveaway that "revenue" is exactly what is taxed, by definition.

[RayNAustin]

And I wouldn't be the Pot calling the Kettle Black. Loose use of facts and figures? What about multiple incorrect usage of specific tax code terminology?


How about correctly using and understanding the term "revenue?"
Your $300 Million "revenue" figure fails to account for ANY costs of goods or services, operating expenses, interest or taxes.

I said revenue, nothing more, and I gave you a legitimate figure...as opposed to your loose use of team salary against the $99 ticket price
multiplied by the number of seats that failed to account for....well.....everything else including the fact that not all seats are $99.

I never said ANYTHING ABOUT TAXES OR TAX CODE.

Revenue - The amount of money that a company actually receives during a specific period, including discounts and deductions for returned merchandise. It is the "top line" or "gross income" figure from which costs are subtracted to determine net income.

Profit Margin - A ratio of profitability calculated as net income divided by revenues, or net profits divided by sales. It measures how much out of every dollar of sales a company actually keeps in earnings.

After Tax Profit Margin - A financial performance ratio, calculated by dividing net income after taxes by net sales. A company's after-tax profit margin is important because it tells investors the percentage of money a company actually earns per dollar of sales. This ratio is interpreted in the same way as profit margin - the after-tax profit margin is simply more stringent because it takes taxes into account.

Net Margin - The ratio of net profits to revenues for a company or business segment - typically expressed as a percentage – that shows how much of each dollar earned by the company is translated into profits. Net margins can generally be calculated as:

Net Profit (Revenue - Cost Of Goods & Services - Operating Expenses - Interest and Taxes) divided by Revenue = Net Profit Margin

Net Income is calculated by starting with a company's total revenue. From this, the cost of sales, along with any other expenses that the company incurred during the period, is removed to reach earnings before tax. Tax is deducted from this amount to reach the net income number. Net income, like other accounting measures, is susceptible to manipulation through such things as aggressive revenue recognition or by hiding expenses. When basing an investment decision on net income numbers, it is important to review the quality of the numbers that were used to arrive at this value.

Net Operating Income - A company's operating income after operating expenses are deducted, but before income taxes and interest are deducted. If this is a positive value, it is referred to as net operating income, while a negative value is called a net operating loss (NOL).

Now that I've addressed basic terminology associated with the Tax Code, is "revenue" the correct term? If so, what are the more relevant Net Profit, Net Income, Net Profit Margin, and Net Operating Income figures? And is there a source for these figures, because all of THN can play the "We don't trust your information" and the "your full of crap" games.

Yes you are full of it, and you ought to be tired of challenging me when you SHOULD know I'm going to PROVE you are full of it.

For comparison purposes here are some of the relevant figures for the Redskins, Dallas Cowboys, COLTS

----------------------------REDSKINS-----COWBOYS----COLTS

REVENUE---------------------312 (M)---------242---------184

OPERATING INCOME---------66.0 (M)--------4.3--------(17.3)(Negative)

OPERATING MARGIN---------21.2%----------1.8 %------(9.4) (Negative)

The Redskins have the most operating income of any team in the NFL, with the second closest being 20 Million away, and the average among the entire NFL is less than half at around 28-30 Million.

The Redskins operating margin is astronomical by professional sports teams standards, as well as corporate businesses of any flavor, with very successful businesses operation margins falling into the single digit area of 5-9%. So the Cowboys 1.8% is rather low, but still shows profit as compared to the Colts who are operating at a net loss.

Now I understand that you would like to obfuscate every conversation with your mumbo jumbo, but the above figures don't lie, and they are from Forbes financial......which you can easily look up yourself.

This supports my view that compared to the rest of the NFL, Snyder has made the Redskins most profitable....some of it coming from very smart operating procedures and a lot of it from finding every conceivable way of squeezing every last penny out of the Fans, from ticket prices, to parking and even a $4 911 surcharge for security.

The total revenue figure for the Redskins has DOUBLED since 1999 when he bought the team.....but the operating costs like salary (largest cost) is CAPPED.

[RayNAustin]

One more little tidbit.......

In the past, the NFL and most sports teams were the playground for the very wealthy, and considered more of a showcase rather than a major profit generator. Most team owners were happy to show any profit whatsoever. Any positive operating margin was good.

Cooke was one such owner. He produced winning teams when there was no salary cap. He operated at a net profit, was willing to pay top dollar for talent, and didn't grab fans by the ankles and shake them down until their pockets were empty.

That's when things were reasonable. Cooke made a tidy profit...the players were happy and well paid, and the average guy could afford to go to a game, have a beer and a dog, and not be financially assaulted for his support....and we won Super Bowls on top of it.

Many of you like it better the way it is today. No Super Bowls, squeezed for every penny you have in your pockets, and a Billionaire laughing all the way to the bank with your money.

Like I said, that's either stupidity, or some really like being abused.

[VetSkinsFan]

One more little tidbit.......

In the past, the NFL and most sports teams were the playground for the very wealthy, and considered more of a showcase rather than a major profit generator. Most team owners were happy to show any profit whatsoever. Any positive operating margin was good.

Cooke was one such owner. He produced winning teams when there was no salary cap. He operated at a net profit, was willing to pay top dollar for talent, and didn't grab fans by the ankles and shake them down until their pockets were empty.

That's when things were reasonable. Cooke made a tidy profit...the players were happy and well paid, and the average guy could afford to go to a game, have a beer and a dog, and not be financially assaulted for his support....and we won Super Bowls on top of it.

Many of you like it better the way it is today. No Super Bowls, squeezed for every penny you have in your pockets, and a Billionaire laughing all the way to the bank with your money.

Like I said, that's either stupidity, or some really like being abused.

Are you reading the same forums I am? Many like it better? I've not heard ANYONE that I recall saying they like it better, short of possibly the stadium.

[GSPODS]

Yes you are full of it, and you ought to be tired of challenging me when you SHOULD know I'm going to PROVE you are full of it.

For comparison purposes here are some of the relevant figures for the Redskins, Dallas Cowboys, COLTS

----------------------------REDSKINS-----COWBOYS----COLTS

REVENUE---------------------312 (M)---------242---------184

OPERATING INCOME---------66.0 (M)--------4.3--------(17.3)(Negative)

OPERATING MARGIN---------21.2%----------1.8 %------(9.4) (Negative)

Use your numbers.

The Redskins have an operating margin of $6,614,400,00. (21.2%)
That means the Redskins have an Operating Cost of $245,856,000.00. (78.8%)

Did you bother to compare the operating cost of other NFL franchises?
Or the operating percentage of other franchises?
The Cowboys have an Operating Margin of $4,356,000.00 (1.8%)
The Cowboys have an Operating Cost of $237,644,000.00 (98.2%)
There isn't much difference in the figures between the Skins and the Boys. The difference is largely in a percentage, not an actual cash figure.

Do you suppose part of the difference in profit margin is because Snyder owns the stadium?
Do you further suppose part of the margin is because FedEx has more seats than any other NFL stadium?
Did you bother to compare ticket prices, parking prices, concession prices between franchises?
Did you compare non-coaching and non-player personnel costs between franchises?
Do you suppose Snyder has other shareholders he has to answer to? Shareholders generally expect a return on their investment.

It sounds like you're just pissed off that Snyder is a better businessman than he is a football executive. As a few others have stated, if the prices bother you, don't pay them. It won't bother Dan Snyder or the rest of us in the least.

[Fios]

We're getting pretty far afield of where this topic started

[yupchagee]

But this is exactly why gas is $3.50 a gal. and why it will be $5-$6 by this time next year.

This is why it costs $300 for two people to go to a damned football game and have a hot dog and a coke. Because so many will bend over backwards to justify why it is so reasonable for a Billionaire to squeeze every dime he can out of the surfs for tickets and concessions and still have the nerve to charge $35 to park for 3 hours.

And I hope the prices of all of it quadruple. Because anyone who likes being squeezed deserves to be squeezed dry.

Gasoline is $3.50 because crude is $120/barrel or $2.85/gal. Add federal tax of $0.18 & it is already over $3. State & local taxes take another chung & it costs money to refine, transport & distribute gasoline & the retail outlets add their markup. Both crude & gasoline are comodities thst are openly traded Speculators have more influence on prices than oil companies do.

There is 1 big difference between gasoline & football tickets: We need to travel to jobs, grocery stores etc, so we have to use some gas (although not as much as we DO use) while football tickets are strictly a luxury item.

[Fios]

We're getting pretty far afield of where this topic started

To be clear, this isn't a random observation, it's a friendly reminder to adhere to the initial topic. I think this is a worthy discussion, just not in this thread.

[1niksder]

Gasoline is $3.50 because crude is $120/barrel or $2.85/gal. Add federal tax of $0.18 & it is already over $3. State & local taxes take another chung & it costs money to refine, transport & distribute gasoline & the retail outlets add their markup. Both crude & gasoline are comodities thst are openly traded Speculators have more influence on prices than oil companies do.

There is 1 big difference between gasoline & football tickets: We need to travel to jobs, grocery stores etc, so we have to use some gas (although not as much as we DO use) while football tickets are strictly a luxury item.

So what you are saying is... rookies need to be paid a lot because they have to drive back and forth to work (football is a job), to work-outs or whatever else the team sets up for him as they introduce the player to the fan base. And being in a new city they'll be bringing in family for their games and pay for the game ticket. By the time they get past their first contract they will have found all the little back road shortcuts and gas efficient routes throughout the area. His family will have become content with the player making the pros or relocated and those lowering the players cost. Now if the player moves to another team then it's back to being in need of more money for both gas and tickets.

Now that makes sense and also explains why most free agent make more when they move teams. I always thought it had something to do with stupid things like past and projected performance, cap position, it the player fit the scheme and things like that.

If nothing else we'll just assume you were trying to get back to ey not being happy with the way Rookies are paid.

If not the cup will be making a third post and that would be uncalled for considering how long we'e let it run and there have been no restirction put on either GSPODS or RayNAustin (meaning you could have taking this little debate into it's own thread)

[fleetus]

Yeah, this is about the NFL salary structure and how a disproportionately large amount of money goes to the rookies each year. All NFL players make more than the avg. Joe, so what. That's not the point.


It needs to be fixed. I think most of the fans and media agree that it is an obvious problem. I routinely hear sports radio ask why the NFL hasn't adopted an NBA fixed rookie contract system yet. It is becoming similar to the BCS argument, where 90% of the fans want one thing and the establishment is not changing it.

That sounds familiar. Nothing more Amerikan than that, Comrade. What I find interesting is that any fans would worry about overgrown Millionaire kids who make more in a couple of years than you'll make the next 20.

Now if you said, hey, they need to stop paying these guys so much money, and charge a more affordable price for tickets, and stop raping the poor fans to make these ungrateful brats richer than King David, I'd have to agree with you.

Well, go ahead and get rid of the salary cap and see how much the salaries balloon out of control. You're either a hypocrite or just someone who likes to hear himself rant. Maybe your screen name should be Rant Austin. You admonish the multi-million dollar salaries but yet you also berate the one thing that is keeping them in check, the salary cap. Are you confused?

Nothing at all "free market" about salary caps either, and putting more caps in place won't make the first more free. And I dare say there is nothing to be found in the constitution to support limiting salaries of football players either, including Rookies.

I must have misunderstood the purpose of the Constitution. I didn't realize our forefathers intended it to regulate sports franchises.

The only difference is that I didn't suggest binding rules or acts of congress mandating a reduction in ticket prices. I just said I'd like to see that happen, and I also suggested how to make that happen through the time test free market way of refusing to pay $35 to park your car. But the masses will never come together because they're too stupid to realize how brutally they are being screwed, among other things.

Corporations are what drives the prices up. A large amount of revenue for NFL teams comes from their luxury boxes and club seats. So, again, remove the salary cap and let the free market take football completely out of everyones reach. Maybe, once they have whole stadiums set up specifically for corporations and all the seats are $150 and up, they'll get wise and start charging pay-per-view for all their games on cable.

The NFL is the product, not the Washington Redskins. That is why they are granted an anti-trust exemption, because Congress recognized that the NFL is unique from most businesses because IT HAS TO MAINTAIN A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD BETWEEN THE 32 TEAMS TO BE A SPORT WIT SOME INTEGRITY AND CONSISTENCY. There needs to be a balance between entertainment and sport otherwise the integrity of the sport is lost to GREED. If the NFL became purely a free market enterprise then it would be ruled entirely by the entertainment dollar. The NY Giants would have 5 times the salary as the Steelers, Packers and Chiefs (just like the Yankees do in baseball) Salaries would be dictated even more by the entertainment value a player brings. Home Runs are what generate entertainment value in baseball. Baseball has lost all of their integrity because it is now a sport dominated by the home run. Baseball owners ignored the steroid problem for as long as they could, WHY? Because steroids generated more home runs. More home runs meant increased TV revenue. Unlike baseball, in football the entertainment value is highlight reel plays. So without the salary cap, football would pay a lot more money (than it already does) to QB's,WR's, RB's and DE's (that can sack the QB). WHY? Because these guys are the household names, the highlight reels. This is already happening on a lesser scale due to huge TV revenue. If it weren't for the salary cap, maintaining the checks and balances, we would already have lost the NFL to a purely entertainment show. For now, there is still some team work emphasized. Even though Offensive linemen are not household names and do not do end zone dances every week, NFL teams are willing to pay them almost equally large salaries because NFL teams still desire to WIN. Not just the 3 or 4 top tier teams either(like baseball), but almost all 32 think they have a shot at the Playoffs every year and are willing to pay an offensive lineman big money to get there. This is because the NFL uses the salary cap to keep all the teams on an even playing field. This alone is why the NFL dominates as the best competitive sport there is. Otherwise, we'd simply see a mirror image of baseball, declining in popularity each year, yet becoming more expensive each year. We'd get to watch the annual auction for the best talent leaving the smaller franchises, as the top 3 or 4 market teams would compete to outbid each other for their services. But hey, if that happened, we could say it is a free market sport and we'd all rest easier each night.

[RayNAustin]

Yes you are full of it, and you ought to be tired of challenging me when you SHOULD know I'm going to PROVE you are full of it.

For comparison purposes here are some of the relevant figures for the Redskins, Dallas Cowboys, COLTS

----------------------------REDSKINS-----COWBOYS----COLTS

REVENUE---------------------312 (M)---------242---------184

OPERATING INCOME---------66.0 (M)--------4.3--------(17.3)(Negative)

OPERATING MARGIN---------21.2%----------1.8 %------(9.4) (Negative)

Use your numbers.

The Redskins have an operating margin of $6,614,400,00. (21.2%)
That means the Redskins have an Operating Cost of $245,856,000.00. (78.8%)

Did you bother to compare the operating cost of other NFL franchises?
Or the operating percentage of other franchises?
The Cowboys have an Operating Margin of $4,356,000.00 (1.8%)
The Cowboys have an Operating Cost of $237,644,000.00 (98.2%)
There isn't much difference in the figures between the Skins and the Boys. The difference is largely in a percentage, not an actual cash figure.

The operating cost is contained in the figures if you know how to subtract, but thanks for showing us.

But your statement "There isn't much difference in the figures between the Skins and Boys" proves you have no clue. You don't see a difference between 66 Million and 4 Million or the margin 21.2% versus 1.8% ?

No reason to discuss this with you....but if you ever need to break a 100 dollar bill, call me....I'll keep a 5 in my wallet just for you.

[Fios]

sigh ... no reason to discuss it at all now