Not really, but its a good story and a good song.

@daddybull1 said:

It is a play on the Elvis Costello song.:

BTW, in most corporations the profit and loss statements are available to the public but the nuts and bolts numbers are usually burried and are not made public.. I would imagine that stockholders get to see most of the ledger but in privately owned businesses the "family" (and the IRS) is the only entity that sees the real numbers...

Peace

Your new anthem above.

T.Dawg

BTW, in most corporations the profit and loss statements are available to the public but the nuts and bolts numbers are usually burried and are not made public.. I would imagine that stockholders get to see most of the ledger but in privately owned businesses the "family" (and the IRS) is the only entity that sees the real numbers...

Peace

T.Dawg

@daddybull1 said:

To be realistic, I don't know of any major corporation that opens their books to their employees...

On the Contrary, Most major corporations are publicly traded so,indeed, their books would be open to everyone, including their employees.

What you have here however are 31 private corporations and only 1 public corporation

As fans we all want football.. We all want labor peace... We all want a level playing field so we don't have the New York / Boston situation that we have in baseball...

Some of the owners, no names please....{cough, cough, Jerry Jones, cough}, indeed WOULD like an unlevel playing field.

Part of the problem in this labor agreement is the discord between the owners over the division of the money btween themselves..

The owners are the ones putting up the money, taking the risk so naturally they want the bigger piece of the pie..

When I was growing up in the 50's a local bar owner played tackel for the Steelers... He was a starter for about 5 years yet he couldn't survive solely on his NFL paycheck...

Times have changed, in that , even marginal players make enough money in their short NFL careers to help them spring board into a fairly good living after football... I don't think too many NFL players are paying on their student loans 10 years after they leave college...

With that being said, I still can't pick either side to support.. This has been an issue for at least a year and should have been settled by now...

The only losers if there is a lockout will be the fans cause in reality both sides are actually playing on our dime...

Peace

Love and Understanding. What's so funny about that?

The key here is the Packers...their pricing falls right in line in that $70 range were a great number of the teams have their pricing set.

One also has to consider that raising prices doesn't really help the owner because that is shared with the players.

The incremental increases in rookie pay, along with the agreed splits with the union chew it up faster then it can hit the teams bottom line.

Rookies for a long while have gone in knowing a bonus and signing number are going to be about 4-5%

over last years number for the same draft slot.

That in turn raises every other salary when it comes time to renew a contract.

It's like a big snowball that just keeps getting bigger as it builds up steam rolling down the hill.

But yeah, i agree, I just want football and trust they will work it out.

I hope so anyway. I just paid off my $1404 due by electronic draft about 5 minutes ago.

@ballpeen said:

The Cowboys or Giants don't bring in all that much more then does Cincy or Pittsbirgh.

TV and radio is where the money is, and that is shared.

They all bring in about the same on tickets, and one market doesn't eat or drink that much more over another.

Luxury box sales are about the only difference,,,,that isn't shared.

The Packers are near the top.

Um not exactly 'Peen. I knew I could find the numbers somewhere.

Tickets, ECT. Cost per team

One thing fer sure, Browns fans can quit bitching about Lerner being greedy RIGHT NOW.

I'd have to look up revenue sharing on regular seating, but Jerry Jones has the Steelers doubled on seating capacity, and my math says that works out to $37 million a year more, give or take a few million. And those extra fans are drinking twice as much beer- take that to the Forth Worth Bank.

PS Wake me up when this gets settled- and it will eventually.

@daddybull1 said:

As fans we all want football.. We all want labor peace... We all want a level playing field so we don't have the New York / Boston situation that we have in baseball...

The owners are the ones putting up the money, taking the risk so naturally they want the bigger piece of the pie..

When I was growing up in the 50's a local bar owner played tackel for the Steelers... He was a starter for about 5 years yet he couldn't survive solely on his NFL paycheck...

Times have changed, in that , even marginal players make enough money in their short NFL careers to help them spring board into a fairly good living after football... I don't think too many NFL players are paying on their student loans 10 years after they leave college...

With that being said, I still can't pick either side to support.. This has been an issue for at least a year and should have been settled by now...

The only losers if there is a lockout will be the fans cause in reality both sides are actually playing on our dime...

Peace

T.Dawg

I agree with you brotha, the owners are not required to show anything to anyone. Even if they did, I'm sure the numbers would be skewed a bit. Can't really say to myself either side is getting the screws.

In a way football was much better before FA when owners had complete control. Football seemed more intense and meaningful. Players weren't getting their rivals signature after the games and players weren't smiling after a loss. I hate that.

I guess I take the side of whichever of the 2 isn't griping about money at the moment. They're both filthy rich and all I care about is the game itself. Its hard to be a fan because they ask so much of us just to be a fan, and ultimately care so little about our opinion. We will definately be the only losers here. Truly sad.

As fans we all want football.. We all want labor peace... We all want a level playing field so we don't have the New York / Boston situation that we have in baseball...

The owners are the ones putting up the money, taking the risk so naturally they want the bigger piece of the pie..

When I was growing up in the 50's a local bar owner played tackel for the Steelers... He was a starter for about 5 years yet he couldn't survive solely on his NFL paycheck...

Times have changed, in that , even marginal players make enough money in their short NFL careers to help them spring board into a fairly good living after football... I don't think too many NFL players are paying on their student loans 10 years after they leave college...

With that being said, I still can't pick either side to support.. This has been an issue for at least a year and should have been settled by now...

The only losers if there is a lockout will be the fans cause in reality both sides are actually playing on our dime...

Peace

T.Dawg

@the-gipper said:

With sharing as is the case, unlike baseball, all the teams bring in similar revenue.

The Cowboys or Giants don't bring in all that much more then does Cincy or Pittsbirgh.

TV and radio is where the money is, and that is shared.

They all bring in about the same on tickets, and one market doesn't eat or drink that much more over another.

Luxury box sales are about the only difference,,,,that isn't shared.

The Packers are near the top.

Hillis-iz-Boss said:

Because their arguement wouldn't hold water. They feel disrespected from the last deal.........its gonna require the players to do most of the comprimising to salvage the season. I've seen and heard enough to get the idea the owners aren't getting a 'bad deal' this time.

I hear people say all the time they would happily play football for the league minimum and I agree. But I also would gladly own the browns for a fraction of what Lerner makes. Everyone in the biz should step back and consider how lucky they are.

@the-gipper said:

What I am not sure of though is whether or not teams can sign contracts with their draftees until the CBA is resolved, though I understand they do retain the rights to those players

Yep sounds about right.

From watching sports center I can't see this deal getting done in 18 days. Both side are so far apart it isn't funny.

and from what I heard they couldn't even agree if it was a proposal brought to the last meeting by the owners or a slide show. Wtf!

That to me says this isn't getting done till well after the draft.

The nflpa is going to make them sweat and start losing money before this gets done.

We may even see "The Browns Board Official Scab Thread"? In the coming months.

@erie-dawg said:

I may be wrong but I thought they still have the draft just can't talk numbers or sign a contract until the cba is finalized.

The Draft will still take place despite any lockout. As I understand it, the reason for this is that the draft does not affect current union members. Players don't become a member of the NFLPA until they are drafted then later signed by a team. So the draft can happen regardless.

What I am not sure of though is whether or not teams can sign contracts with their draftees until the CBA is resolved, though I understand they do retain the rights to those players.

@ballpeen said:

The NFL shares revenue. Most stadiums are about the same in size. Payrolls for players have to hit a minimum and have a maximum. Ticket pricing varies some, but most prices are reasonably close for regular seats...not the skybox variety.

No doubt there are going to be some variations as all revenue isn't shared, but all of the big money is...it's not a stretch to say each teams numbers are going to closely reflect the Green Bay numbers.

At least the teams with a solid fan base who buy tickets and fill the stadium.

But why should the players go off of the Packers numbers. Why can't the owners just open their books. A deal could have been done already if they just said look at what we got and showed the players union how much they are actually making instead of just saying trust us.

@ballpeen said:

I would assume the Packers are a team that doesn't have trouble generating top line sales, so their numbers would be some of the best in the league, not in the middle or lower half.

http://www.packers.com/news-and-events/art...de-384c565d01fb

Actually, I understand that because the Packers are in such a small market, they are in the middle or lower half, except perhaps in years when they are doing very well, like this year obviously. This is the speculation I have heard.

@dawgtracker said:

March 4th.

I may be wrong but I thought they still have the draft just can't talk numbers or sign a contract until the cba is finalized.

The NFL shares revenue. Most stadiums are about the same in size. Payrolls for players have to hit a minimum and have a maximum. Ticket pricing varies some, but most prices are reasonably close for regular seats...not the skybox variety.

No doubt there are going to be some variations as all revenue isn't shared, but all of the big money is...it's not a stretch to say each teams numbers are going to closely reflect the Green Bay numbers.

At least the teams with a solid fan base who buy tickets and fill the stadium.

@ballpeen said:

I was a 35% silent partner in my brothers company which held 5 McDonalds franchises before he sold out 4-5 years ago.

In a 'typical" McDonalds, food cost ran about 30%, paper ran 4%, crew labor ran around 17%, and management labor ran about 4%.....so cost of goods and total labor ran about 55%.

A typical profit % would be around 10%.

Here is the problem the NFL has. Unlike the restaurant, they can't really increase sales by doing everything right. They are limited by stadium size. You can only serve so many customers on any given Sunday.

They now know they have tickets priced about as high as they can go for a good while, and in many cases may even have to decrease ticket pricing. Advertising rates have leveled off, and even those might start to decrease, yet they are always having to boost the starting pay 3-4-5 % over last years figure.

The numbers don't work anymore. Forget the amount of dollars involved, that doesn't matter. It's all in the percentages.

The owners pie is shrinking and the players pie is growing, and the owners aren't putting up with it anymore.

IMO they are at the point a reasonable profit margin they are entitled too....yes, I am saying that now...is quickly going down the drain.

Then go ahead and give the owners the other 1 billion but why in the hell do the also need to add two more games a season and implement a rookie wage scale if the owners are already getting more money. Those two things are being pushed across, one to get the owners more money, and the other to save the owners million upon millions of dollars. It makes no sense to say that they should get a bigger piece of the pie and then should get to pay even less money to new players so that they can save even more. This deal could put the owners not only back at their 10% profit margin, but way above it. Add all of this on top of the fact that the owners still refuse to show their books, for all we know they are making a huge profit right now and are just being greedy.

LINK

I would assume the Packers are a team that doesn't have trouble generating top line sales, so their numbers would be some of the best in the league, not in the middle or lower half.

http://www.packers.com/news-and-events/art...de-384c565d01fb

Operating income isn't profit.

If you take the numbers ....it said the average team had a OI of 32 mil.

After taxes, interest, and D&A, that figure is now going down towards 10-15 mil.

No doubt a large sum of money, but from a percentage standpoint based on total revenue, it is now down towards the 10-12% figure.....just like the restaurant.

Any business plan from lemonade stand to the largest mulit-national company you can name that doesn't have a business plan that doesn't allow for a 10% net profit is a failed outfit.

@ballpeen said:

I was a 35% silent partner in my brothers company which held 5 McDonalds franchises before he sold out 4-5 years ago.

In a 'typical" McDonalds, food cost ran about 30%, paper ran 4%, crew labor ran around 17%, and management labor ran about 4%.....so cost of goods and total labor ran about 55%.

A typical profit % would be around 10%.

Here is the problem the NFL has. Unlike the restaurant, they can't really increase sales by doing everything right. They are limited by stadium size. You can only serve so many customers on any given Sunday.

They now know they have tickets priced about as high as they can go for a good while, and in many cases may even have to decrease ticket pricing. Advertising rates have leveled off, and even those might start to decrease, yet they are always having to boost the starting pay 3-4-5 % over last years figure.

The numbers don't work anymore. Forget the amount of dollars involved, that doesn't matter. It's all in the percentages.

The owners pie is shrinking and the players pie is growing, and the owners aren't putting up with it anymore.

IMO they are at the point a reasonable profit margin they are entitled too....yes, I am saying that now...is quickly going down the drain.

Well, I dug this up for kicks and giggles 'Peen.

Forbes on the NFL

And philosophically, just because you "bought into" a super successful franchise, does that mean you have a God given right to turn (what you consider to be) a decent profit? I say no. Look at those numbers- teams were making millions before they even sold us fans $7 beers.

Yeah- (some) owners who bought in high are feeling cash strapped because of their debt service. Well, Browns fans have been down that road before in spades with one former Browns owner by the name of Arthur B Modell. And ditto that with some team's values decreasing, so owners can't borrow (as much) against their equity. So cry me a river- till the owners open the books and prove someone is LOSING money- your arguments don't hold water- you're just not making as much as you think you're "entitled" to.

For fun, Randy's dad bought the Browns for about $400 million in 1999. so giving him a conservative $50 million a year operating margin, that means Al's "investment" was paid off years ago. I don't know about you, but I could live like the Emperor of Dayton on $50 million a year. After a year or two, I would probably have trouble spending money that fast.

And in case you think I'm on the players side, well, I'm not. A rookie wage scale is long overdue. When you're paying Sam Bradford Tom Brady money before he ever took a snap in the league, something's seriously wrong. And in your altruism, players- how much of your $4+ billion share of the pie did you allocate to your crippled retired brethren? a few hundred million buys one hell of a lot of health insurance. And with rookie minimum @ $300k- about six times what the average working stiff that buys those season tickets makes- don't expect me to feel your pain too much either.

@mr.-t said:

That's why I am in favor of an 18 game season. That way we will only have to pay for 1 practice game. I'm sick of paying for 2 exhibition games. Especially the 4th game. they don;t play any starters at all.