GoSkins wrote:GoSkins wrote:Red_One43 wrote:GoSkins wrote:Red_One43 wrote:Red_One43 wrote: from post on Sat Feb 26, 2011 1:58 pm on this same thread.
A former Eagles owner claimed that he was losing money. When he was forced to sell the team, they looked at the books and found that he was paying himself a $7 million dollar salary. SO much for losing money.
I knew that my memory served me well. Read the following:
July 2, 1992
Discrepancies In N.F.L. Revenue
MINNEAPOLIS, July 1— Roger Noll, a Stanford University economics professor, testified today in the National Football League antitrust trial that the league's reported $1.3 billion in revenue for 1990 was "substantially understated" because of the way the owners do their books.
He said his research found that the N.F.L. reported 1990 total operating expenses of $411 million. Operating profits were reported as $163 million, but Noll said the profits were shielded from costs such as the $600,000 per team contributed to the World League of American Football and two antitrust lawsuits that are "the costs of defending and maintaining a monopoly."
Noll said his analysis of the N.F.L.'s financial statement showed that Norman Braman, owner of the Philadelphia Eagles, paid himself a salary of $7.5 million for 1990. That salary was recorded as general expenses, when it could have been counted as profit for Braman, Noll told the jury. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... nted=printOwners, open those books!
If the players want to see the books; fine, but they must agree beforehand to "buy in" and thus take an ownership position in their respective NFL franchise. Before "buying in" the players, as minority owners, would demand GAAP Accounting income statements and balance sheets as well as cash flow statements that are audited with the statements receiving a "Clean" opinion from a mutually agreed to independent accounting firm. Once the numbers are available the players must purchase shares. Then they too will share in the risks and rewards of their business. Once a player leaves the professioanl ranks he must sell his shares back to other players. The price of those shares will be determined by a predetermined formula.
Uh, your proposal doesn't even begin to address the article. Oh yeah, change the subject that is a good tactic. Well let's have a go.
If the owners show the books, I propose that the fans get to buy shares. It works in Greenbay!!! Greenbay's books are open. Of course they are and they don't have owner/fans skimming $7 mil and claiming that they are broke - No Green Bay owners/fans paying themselves $7 mil, huh?
Look owners can do whatever they want with their teams. I mean, they can charge fans to watch practice, right? Sell Super Bowl seats that don't exist, huh? No one is saying the owners do not have the right to keep their books private. Nno one is saying an owner doesn't have the right to make as much money as he can - Dan and Jerry.
The issue at hand is if you want an extra billion dollars from your "partners" who SHARE (yes share) the revenue with you, then the onus is on you to convince them to give it up (Maybe instead of spending two years plus planning a lockout, you spend two years making better relations with your partners, then maybe they would have welcomed negotiations on a new CBA). They don't want to give it up. Why should they? The previous CBA was working. $9 billion dollars worth and projections saying even more in the future. Courts here we come.
Hey GoSkins, show us your evidence that the CBA
wasn't working or are you too busy tweaking that proposal of yours.
Don't be cute. The $7mm skim was the owner's compensation which is an expense item. And that was in
1992. The issue is some of the owner's have real financial issues because of the stadiums they built with the resultant revenues below projections. Now what are those owner's going to do? Hello, the economy has just experienced the worst recession since the Great Depression. And the players don't get that?
Why harp on almost 20 year old information? You alluded to the NY market. FYI, neither team has been successful is selling all their PSLs. Also, you use the $9 billion revenues number without using an expense number. The players and union have seen the aggregated expense number. The players didn't "like that number" so they walked out of the negotiations. As I mentioned earlier, the players and owners should enter into an ownership agreement where the players and owners agree to an independent audit of all financials. This would be a quid pro quo for the players to "buy into" the ownership and thereby put their own capital at risk.
Good point about the the aggrgated expense number, but do you know what it is? I haven't seen a number. Without the books, can we trust this data. Just like 20 years ago an owner was paying himself $7 mil (which was not and is not illegal) and saying that he was losing x amount of dollars, but if that $7 mil was added to the profits then the amount of the loss is misleading. The players know that this kind of thing goes on - they want to see the "real" numbers. How have the owners shown that this past CBA hindered the growth of the game? Revenues rose and so did expenditures, but the owners have yet to show how the rising expenditures negated the rising revenue. Yes, there might be some small market teams out there that are losing money. Perhaps, they need to change location. LA is begging for a team. Perhaps, they need to try a Green Bay type of public shares? Nope, they want the easy way out and take
back from the players.
Good point on the NY markets not selling PSLs but what does that really mean? Giants fans reacted with hostility when they first heard about that the Meadowlands was going the PSL route. It was trouble from the start. The economy may have contributed to the slow PSL sells but that wasn't the main factor. PSLs may be a good idea for the builders, but not always the best for the fans. Are the Giants and the Jets ownership claiming that they are losing money? I haven't heard this. Has the value of their franchises gone down? Both the Giants and Jets still sold out their games.
I owe you an apology. I didn't think that your proposal was serious. I am not saying that it doesn't have merit because it has worked in other business situations. The reason why I didn't think that you were serious because I was talking about the short term here -like show the books today and then I read your proposal - I thought you were trying to be cute. I offer my humble apology. I get what you are saying, but my understanding that the reason why the owners do not want to show the books is they don't want other teams seeing their books. They don't think the players will be able to make sense of the books (Of course that is why the players insist on an independent auditor). Your proposal would not solve the issue of the showing the books. Also, the players wanting to see the books is a tactic to win public approval, because they know there are fans like me that are suspcious of the owners and how they operate (Again, I refer to the article not as a 20 year old relic but as supporting evidence that that is business as usual with owners because it isn't illegal). They know the owners as a whole will never show their books. Finally, I don't see any owner giving up any parts of their ownership to players or fans. As a business model, I respect your proposal. As an NFL model - no chance of it getting consideration.
Here is the bottom line for me. Once you give somebody somewthing, It is next to impossible to give it back. There are a few individuals out there who will say, since you are saying that you are in trouble and need help, I will give it back to you.
In the NFL owners case, they want something back. They didn't ask - they threatened for years to force it back. Then they start the negotiations at a billion dollars and we hear that the two sides got as close as $300 million. Why couldn't the owners accept that? You say why couldn't the players accept that? I say, if the players are to give back, they should have no doubts that if they are going to willingly giving up money, that money is NEEDED to grow the business. Open the books! Meanwhile the players and the fans are watching this same business grow each year after year under this past CBA despite onwner's cries of losing money and owners like Jerry Jones saying that they are tired of sharing money with small market teams. Players willingly give up money that they already have? It makes no business since to do so knowing what they know. NFL, get the money from the Jerry Joneses and their false cries of we need the money to grow the business when we can all see who the real greedy ones are. Risks of ownership? Jerry Jones is near 70. Dave Duerson, Andre waters, Shane Dronett and the roll call will go on of players dying before reaching 60 or taking their own lives because they sacrificed their bodies for the game. Not all of the players are millionaires. They aren't asking for more. They are saying leave it just the way it is. If a owner doesn't want to pay an individual player big bucks, then show restraint - no team in the NFL has ever bought a Super Bowl.
