He claims that because of the way Thomson has managed the cap, thus causing the Packers to reap a profit of $20 million in 2007-2008, which is public information, they have put the league in a bad position for the upcoming CBA talks. Bedard does a good job of shooting this theory down.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/49201077.html

Just when you think you've seen/heard/read it all...something like this comes along.

Idot!

There is enough in the Packer financial disclosure to make it a none issue. They clearly saw player costs (salaries) rising faster than local revenues. If the owners feel they have to capitulate because of the Packers aren't losing money in this recession, they are crazy. If anything, this bolsters their argument that a well run, fiscally responsible organization is heading down a pathway that is financially unsustainable. The players are going to lose this negotiation, big time.

That said, it is good that they are looking at the profit and not the loss in investments. Hopefully, the loss in investments is off the Packers' books and they are rid of all of their CDO's, etc. Ultimately, they are responsible for how they invest, not the players.

But it was only a $4 mil Net Profit, due to investment losses. Also, the Pack has less debt than most teams ( I think? ), so tying in payments on debt for other teams would lower their profit in many cases.

I do hope they can hammer out a new CBA that is fair to both sides without having to resort to lock-outs or strikes.

You can also add that if GB had signed 1 big name FA they would of lost money. They need to agree on something that will work for both sides. I don't want the NFL to end up like MLB where a few teams have all the money. It would be a shame to see the small market teams dumping talent they couldn't afford every year.

Wow. Easily the dumbest thing i have ever read on the internet. This is like saying Toyota and Honda should have lost more money so it would make GM, Ford and Chrysler look better when they went to the government for bailout money.

Idiots like Russ Tucker should not be allowed to write columns on legit websites like cnnsi.com.

If I was SI.com, I would be fairly embarrassed. What a waste of internet space.

Yeah,
But this is the thinking that permeates across the country today ... everything headed towards subsidy and union benefits, same here.

There is no larger benefit by faking the way a franchise should be fiscally run in accordance to its talent.

The Packers could do what Jerra, Snyder and the blowhards want and in the end the little franchise in the sticks would be left holding the bag. Don't kid yourself.

NFL football, barring Qb's and kickers, is a young mans game ... TT is doing things the right way. He who picks the young talent best and cherry picks his complimentary free agents will always compete and thats really all any fan can ask for unless your unrealistic, IMO.

The teams that "should have taken bullet for league" are the Snyders and Jones' of the world.

Packerboi nailed it. What a waste of internet space.

quote:

Originally posted by DurangoDoug:
Also, the Pack has less debt than most teams ( I think? ), so tying in payments on debt for other teams would lower their profit in many cases.

Bingo, the Packers have no debt. In fact the Packers are not a legally constructed organization. The only reason they can operate as they do is becouse the Supreme Court when they ruled on corporate structures made a special exception for the Packers and few other pre existing organizations.
Most NFL teams have a mountain of debt they have to service. Generally the debt occurs when a team is sold. Also there are strict laws about how much retained earnings a business can kept before distributing profits to ownership. The government cares about retained earnings because when profits are distributed the profits are taxed a second time.
The Packers since their character does not allow profits to be distributed to owner never disburse retained earnings. So the Packers are enabled to build up a large reserve, about 150 million, which they invest. So instead of have a large debt to service the Packers are able in most years to increase their earning through investment income.
Since the Packers function under different rules then other NFL teams they are not valid model to compare other NFL franchise to. And the reason why government went to great length to declare the Packers business unconstitutional is apparent. The government does not collect as much taxes from the Packers as they do on other corporations.

quote:

Originally posted by turnip blood:

Thanks for that insight

Great post turnip. Perhaps if SI did some homework they would be more educated on how the Packers function.

quote:

Originally posted by turnip blood:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DurangoDoug:
The government does not collect as much taxes from the Packers as they do on other corporations.

- I don't think this exactly true ... do you have a link about this "Supreme Court special exception". Are you saying this enactment laid the foundation for todays Non-profits such as Co-ops and Trust structures?

Short Answer:
I know someone would ask about non-profits. Your are right it is not exactly true but I was trying to keep the answer short and simple.

For everyone who do not care about property right issue Just fuscous on these points: the Packers Organization is a unique form of a non profit. They have no debt. They can retain excess funds for future use. They are subject to different rules then the other NFL franchises. Taxation and retained earning issue also play a role but are very complex.

Long answer
Stocks implies ownership and property rights. (That is rights to share of the profits)
Today government agencies and non profits do not issue stock or include owner’s equity statement on their balance sheets. We only have asset liability and an excess or shortage sections.
The Packers are a non profit except they are allowed to issue stocks. (This is what was Grandfather)
Other NFL teams could also can become non profits, under modern rules governing non profits, but the NFL does not allow them do to it.

The Supreme Court ruling is very old I think from he 1920’s and had to do with property rights. These books all address these issues:

Nice, David C., Public Budgeting. Belmont CA.,Wadsworth 2002

Rossenbloom, David and Goldman Deborah, Public Administration Public Understanding Management, Politics and Law in the Public Sector New York, Random House 1990

Rubin, Irene S, Public Budgeting: The Concept of Budgeting as Political Choice, Public Administration: Concepts and Cases. Ed Stillman, Richard Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005

Wildavsky, Aaron, The Politics of the Budgetary Process, Fourth Addition, Boston, Little Brown and Company, 1984

Wood, Len, Little Budget Book, Rancho Palos Verdes CA. Training Shoppe 2000

Riley, Susan L, and Colby, Peter W, Practical Government Budgeting, Albany, New York, State University of New York Press, 1991

I can not send you my link to my legal service, the state really owns that, but here is an open source document. It just a Wiki but is the best I can find.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-profit_organization
A primary difference between a nonprofit and a for-profit corporation is that a nonprofit does not issue stock or pay dividends

Here is a little bit on the NFL outlawing the Packers structure for other teams.

http://www.answers.com/topic/grandfather-clause
The NFL prohibits corporations from owning teams partially, so that ownership can concentrate on football as opposed to making a profit, as well as wanting the teams to have an actual owner instead of a board of directors at owners' meetings. The Green Bay Packers, due to their unique ownership status with the city of Green Bay, Wisconsin, are exempt from this.

quote:

Originally posted by Boris:
The teams that "should have taken bullet for league" are the Snyders and Jones' of the world.

Packerboi nailed it. What a waste of internet space.

Unfortunately the ease of publishing to the internet, the ease of research on the internet and people's general ADHD spawns a "quantity over quality" mentality with these "journalists."

Sadly, any schmuck with a communications degree can become a "journalist," these days.

It gets people talking in the offseason. There really isn't much happening right now in the NFL, and people want NFL talk.

That said, sportswriters have rarely, if ever, been held to the same standards as news journalists. They're most often an odd blend of reporter and columnist and the latter's job is to get the pot stirring.

quote:

Originally posted by Herschel:
It gets people talking in the offseason. There really isn't much happening right now in the NFL, and people want NFL talk.

That said, sportswriters have rarely, if ever, been held to the same standards as news journalists. They're most often an odd blend of reporter and columnist and the latter's job is to get the pot stirring.

I should have realized it is later June. The last week of June to mid July is the slowest part of the year for the NFL. Only thing happening is contract negotiation, real exciting stuff that happens mostly out of the media eye.
I guess for the next three weeks we can expect a steady stream of silly articles, conjecture, and TOG news.

By the way has anyone else visted this site.
http://www.bangcartoon.com/

The real blame should be directed to the idot owners that went overboard signing and overpaying for marginal players- i.e Al Davis, Dan Synder, Jerry Jones, etc. It was that kind of irresponsible spending that drove up the overall market value for free agents- and IMO everyone loses in that scenario.

As for the upcoming negotiations, I would fully prepare for a work stoppage because of two reasons:
1) The NFL is highly successful and profitable - and clearly the players have every right to ask for a bigger piece of the pie.
2) Labor substitution (i.e. strike replacements or alternative players) have proven in the past to be nothing like the real deal.

I have only one word for them - "NUTS!"