[Green Bay Packers] Financial Responsibility (1 Viewer)

[BlueOnion]

I keep hearing how the Packers are more or less a none-profit organization owned by the people of Wisconsin (or should I say Packer supporters), which I am well aware of. I also keeping hearing how each year the Packers do quite well with annual profit, in large part because they don't have to 'pad the pocket-book' of some rich owner. Which although is based on truth (no rich owner), does not paint the whole picture.

***News flash***, everybody in the NFL is making money. The discrepency that is growing in the NFL between small markets and large markets is not annual profit but annual growth.

I am going to use a simple example to show what I am talking about and I will use the objects 'Packers' and 'Redskins' in my example to show that annual profit is not nearly as important as 'annual growth'.

Packers

The Packers like to minimize cost and minimize profit to ensure the stability of their business model.

Year 1 - 200,000K in profit - put into the Packer Trust Fund

Year 2 - 200,000K in profit - put into the Packer Trust Fund

Year 3 - 200,000K in profit - put into the Packer Trust Fund

Year 4 - 200,000K in profit - put into the Packer Trust Fund

Year 5 - 200,000K in profit - put into the Packer Trust Fund

Year 6 - 200,000K in profit - put into the Packer Trust Fund

Year 7 - 200,000K in profit - put into the Packer Trust Fund

Year 8 - 200,000K in profit - put into the Packer Trust Fund

Year 9 - 200,000K in profit - put into the Packer Trust Fund

Year 10 - 200,000K in profit - put into the Packer Trust Fund

So for 10 years, the Green Bay Packers have an outstanding record for posting a solid annual profit. However, they have taken very little of that annual profit to expand their assets and profitiability. This is fine, I have no problem with this business model.

Redskins

The Reskins are aggresive and are interested in expanding their profitibility and equity.

Year 1 - The Redskins also have 200,000K in profit, but instead purchase a new house (an expense to expand equity) in which they will rent it out for additional profit. Accounting wise, the Redskins annual net profit for year 1 is $0.00, but they do move their net profit to an asset (accounting move).

Year 2 - $214,400K in profit (200,000K + $14,400 in rent) - The Redskins could end the fiscal year with a net profit of $214,400K, but again look to expand their income by purchasing a 2nd house for $200,000. The Redskins net profit for year 2 is only $14,400, considerably less than the Packers in Year 2.

Year 3 - 228,800K in profit (200,000 + 28,800 in rent) - repeat above; Redskins annual net profit in Year 3 would be $28,800.

...

Year 10 - 344,000K in profit ($200,000 + $144,000) - still repeating the process above, the Redskins net annual profit in Year 10 is only $144,000, still less than what the Packers are turning for an annual profit in year 10.

So for 10 years, the Washington Redskins have a medicore record for posting a solid annual profit for 10 years running. However, they have been very aggresive in expanding their revenue streams and have put themselves in a very advantages position.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So if we want to financially evaluate the two entities by looking at annual net profit, the Packers have crushed the Redskins 10 years running. However, if we financially evaluate the two parties on annual net growth, the Redskins have surely crushed the Packers over a 10 year span. Because in year 11, the Redskins could stop expanding their assets (revenue stream if you will) by buying an 11th house and could turn an net annual profit of $344,000; which is almost a 2:1 advantage over what the Packers expect to pull in year 11, which would be $200,000.

So what are the Packers doing with their profits?

linky

So while Redskin fans continue to spend money to support their franchise, Packer fans are actually getting kick-backs from the proceeds of their franchise. Hey, to each (State & Franchise) their own. But this is clearly not in the spirit of revenue sharing.

Packers will argue that they don't have a greedy owner. But what they don't want to acknowledge is that actually have about 50,000 little greedy owners.

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

I blame Brett Favre.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

To address your last point first every franchise has a charitable arm. All are active in their communities. The Packers are not unusual in the scope of this.

Now to address your first point. The Packers have renovated Lambeau. It puts the Humperdome to shame. It is the 10th most profitable facility in the league. With the atrium and the adjoining Hall of Fame it put the Humperdome to shame even before the renovation. Packer merchandise is always amoung the most popular in the league. The Packers were innovators in player tours, fan fests, and Family night during the preseason. In fact they sell out family night while the Vikes struggle to sell regular season games.

They are not a drag on league economics, never have been.

Your franchise, the Vikings, however is much the opposite. Their home has always been a joke from the old Met to the Humperdome. They do little to generate excess revenue, and have lagging merchandise sales. I suppose that if one believes any publicity is good publicity the league could thank the Vikes for their sex crusie which seems to be all they have contributed to the league since the days of Bud Grant.

To sum up, the Vikes suck. Your unprofitable asses are still a candidate to move to L.A., don't kid yourselves.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Viking Charities

To one extent I stand corrected. There are franchises much less generous than the Packers, but the Packers are about representative here.

 

[reg]

To address your last point first every franchise has a charitable arm. All are active in their communities. The Packers are not unusual in the scope of this.

Now to address your first point. The Packers have renovated Lambeau. It puts the Humperdome to shame. It is the 10th most profitable facility in the league. With the atrium and the adjoining Hall of Fame it put the Humperdome to shame even before the renovation. Packer merchandise is always amoung the most popular in the league. The Packers were innovators in player tours, fan fests, and Family night during the preseason. In fact they sell out family night while the Vikes struggle to sell regular season games.

They are not a drag on league economics, never have been.

Your franchise, the Vikings, however is much the opposite. Their home has always been a joke from the old Met to the Humperdome. They do little to generate excess revenue, and have lagging merchandise sales. I suppose that if one believes any publicity is good publicity the league could thank the Vikes for their sex crusie which seems to be all they have contributed to the league since the days of Bud Grant.

To sum up, the Vikes suck. Your unprofitable asses are still a candidate to move to L.A., don't kid yourselves.

Most stadiums parking lots put the Metrodump to shame.

 

[Aaronstory]

Um...if they are such a liability then why are the Packers one of the teams paying into the new revenue sharing plan? The renovation of Lambeau alone disproves your incoherent rant above...

 

[Man in the yellow hat]

Well, there's two minutes of my life I'll never get back.

 

[BlueOnion]

To address your last point first every franchise has a charitable arm. All are active in their communities. The Packers are not unusual in the scope of this.

Now to address your first point. The Packers have renovated Lambeau. It puts the Humperdome to shame. It is the 10th most profitable facility in the league. With the atrium and the adjoining Hall of Fame it put the Humperdome to shame even before the renovation. Packer merchandise is always amoung the most popular in the league. The Packers were innovators in player tours, fan fests, and Family night during the preseason. In fact they sell out family night while the Vikes struggle to sell regular season games.

They are not a drag on league economics, never have been.

Your franchise, the Vikings, however is much the opposite. Their home has always been a joke from the old Met to the Humperdome. They do little to generate excess revenue, and have lagging merchandise sales. I suppose that if one believes any publicity is good publicity the league could thank the Vikes for their sex crusie which seems to be all they have contributed to the league since the days of Bud Grant.

To sum up, the Vikes suck. Your unprofitable asses are still a candidate to move to L.A., don't kid yourselves.

I cannot lie, the Packers are a much better run organization than the Vikings. I hope this changes, but the current history will not.But stadium revenue is not the issue I am talking about, all teams have stadium revenue.

Out of curiousity, what did the Packers do with their 20 million (this is what I have heard) of revenue from last year?

 

[DoctorDetroit]

Good topic here Blue O. Interesting and not of the norm.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

To address your last point first every franchise has a charitable arm.  All are active in their communities.  The Packers are not unusual in the scope of this.

Now to address your first point.  The Packers have renovated Lambeau.  It puts the Humperdome to shame.  It is the 10th most profitable facility in the league. With the atrium and the adjoining Hall of Fame it put the Humperdome to shame even before the renovation.  Packer merchandise is always amoung the most popular in the league.  The Packers were innovators in player tours, fan fests, and Family night during the preseason.  In fact they sell out family night while the Vikes struggle to sell regular season games. 

They are not a drag on league economics, never have been.

Your franchise, the Vikings, however is much the opposite.  Their home has always been a joke from the old Met to the Humperdome.  They do little to generate excess revenue, and have lagging merchandise sales.  I suppose that if one believes any publicity is good publicity the league could thank the Vikes for their sex crusie which seems to be all they have contributed to the league since the days of Bud Grant.

To sum up, the Vikes suck.  Your unprofitable asses are still a candidate to move to L.A., don't kid yourselves.

I cannot lie, the Packers are a much better run organization than the Vikings. I hope this changes, but the current history will not.But stadium revenue is not the issue I am talking about, all teams have stadium revenue.

Out of curiousity, what did the Packers do with their 20 million (this is what I have heard) of revenue from last year?

I have not recieved my shareholder packet yet so I can't say. $20,000,000.00 seems high. regardless it would go to retire bond debt and then go into the next capital improvement fund since stockholders receive no dividends.http://www.packers.com/history/fast_facts/stock_history/

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Good topic here Blue O. Interesting and not of the norm.

Very interesting, other than the fact that all his assumptions were wrong.

 

[BlueOnion]

Good topic here Blue O. Interesting and not of the norm.

Well it is a bit of fishing trip; the Packer organization has more positives than negatives when it comes to their overall NFL contributions.But I think the whole 'organization owned by the fans' is a bit of a red herring when it comes to today's NFL business model. I don't know all the details of the Packers business model, but I would like to learn more of the details.

For instance, it is easy for a fan of Minnesota, New York Jets and Washington to criticize the owner of the franchise because the fans are not the owner. When you get to Wisconsin, the only person a fan can complain about is themselves; so I suspect their are some skeletons in that closet; much like other socialist organizations have.

 

[BlueOnion]

Good topic here Blue O. Interesting and not of the norm.

Very interesting, other than the fact that all his assumptions were wrong.

I very well could be wrong, but I am still interested how the Packers are spending their revenue; in large part because the NFL is based on sharing revenue.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Good topic here Blue O.  Interesting and not of the norm. 

Well it is a bit of fishing trip; the Packer organization has more positives than negatives when it comes to their overall NFL contributions.But I think the whole 'organization owned by the fans' is a bit of a red herring when it comes to today's NFL business model. I don't know all the details of the Packers business model, but I would like to learn more of the details.

For instance, it is easy for a fan of Minnesota, New York Jets and Washington to criticize the owner of the franchise because the fans are not the owner. When you get to Wisconsin, the only person a fan can complain about is themselves; so I suspect their are some skeletons in that closet; much like other socialist organizations have.

Some day soon, and for the Vikings I hope real soon, some other Cities that have been or will be held up for new stadiums will look to the Packer model for relief. Fans would love to bind their team as Green Bay has bond theirs. This is the league's doomsday scenario and they will do everything they can to prevent it. It likely would actually take a congressional fight to allow but the rabid fans of the Vikes, the Browns and others would be up for it. Too bad not all cities have the Rooneys as owners. Must suck have carpetbaggers own your team.

 

[datonn]

Good topic here Blue O. Interesting and not of the norm.

Very interesting, other than the fact that all his assumptions were wrong.

I very well could be wrong, but I am still interested how the Packers are spending their revenue; in large part because the NFL is based on sharing revenue.

BlueOnion,No need to even respond....since you could talk yourself blue in the face for the next 60 years, but if it doesn't match the world view of someone wearing Green and Gold glasses, your facts/opinions will be run through the sausage grinder. Just accept that simple fact and move on.Just be happy that you have more to do in the Twin Cities than drink, bowl and follow a football team.

 

[faede]

I will field this one.

The packers themselves are a good money making team. They are very profitable and continue to be. They are one of the teams that will be paying into the revenue sharing pool for the new Collective Bargaining agreement.

The money they make is put into a general operating fund. That money is used for paying signing bonuses and such where a lot of liquid money is needed. The goal of the team is to make enough profit to continue to put money into that fund and the overall goal of that fund is to cover the Packers expenses for one full season, should the need be required. Currently, that fund does not have enough money in it to do so.

The difference between Dan Snyder, who has a ton of disposible income outside of his profitability from the Redskins and the Packers... is that the Packers as an organization do not have anything outside of their own business to pull from if things ever got bad.

Where a single owner got rich doing "something" and then bought an NFL team when he was rich... and still has that "something" to fall back on for liquid assets... the packers are completely dependent on football revenues to pay for salaries and signing bonuses and the like.

As a financial model, the Packers are amazing. They have by far the smallest market in all of professional sports, yet they are one of the higher revenue teams in the National Football League.

It's quite amazing if you analyze it.

 

[BlueOnion]

I will field this one.

The packers themselves are a good money making team. They are very profitable and continue to be. They are one of the teams that will be paying into the revenue sharing pool for the new Collective Bargaining agreement.

The money they make is put into a general operating fund. That money is used for paying signing bonuses and such where a lot of liquid money is needed. The goal of the team is to make enough profit to continue to put money into that fund and the overall goal of that fund is to cover the Packers expenses for one full season, should the need be required. Currently, that fund does not have enough money in it to do so.

The difference between Dan Snyder, who has a ton of disposible income outside of his profitability from the Redskins and the Packers... is that the Packers as an organization do not have anything outside of their own business to pull from if things ever got bad.

Where a single owner got rich doing "something" and then bought an NFL team when he was rich... and still has that "something" to fall back on for liquid assets... the packers are completely dependent on football revenues to pay for salaries and signing bonuses and the like.

As a financial model, the Packers are amazing. They have by far the smallest market in all of professional sports, yet they are one of the higher revenue teams in the National Football League.

It's quite amazing if you analyze it.

I cannot refute to much of this, I just don't think I have the knowledge-firepower to compete with Packer fans in regards to the Packer-shareholders.But playing devils-advocate, I have to ask the obvious question.

If this business model is so amazing (which I am not disputing), why doesn't the league promote similar business models in expansion? Obviously (for whatever reason) the league wants to go the other way and seek out billionaires and they even have an interview process to review the new owners financial portfolio.

 

[Beergogglz]

I will field this one.

The packers themselves are a good money making team.  They are very profitable and continue to be.  They are one of the teams that will be paying into the revenue sharing pool for the new Collective Bargaining agreement.

The money they make is put into a general operating fund.  That money is used for paying signing bonuses and such where a lot of liquid money is needed.  The goal of the team is to make enough profit to continue to put money into that fund and the overall goal of that fund is to cover the Packers expenses for one full season, should the need be required.  Currently, that fund does not have enough money in it to do so.

The difference between Dan Snyder, who has a ton of disposible income outside of his profitability from the Redskins and the Packers... is that the Packers as an organization do not have anything outside of their own business to pull from if things ever got bad.

Where a single owner got rich doing "something" and then bought an NFL team when he was rich... and still has that "something" to fall back on for liquid assets... the packers are completely dependent on football revenues to pay for salaries and signing bonuses and the like.

As a financial model, the Packers are amazing.  They have by far the smallest market in all of professional sports, yet they are one of the higher revenue teams in the National Football League.

It's quite amazing if you analyze it.

I cannot refute to much of this, I just don't think I have the knowledge-firepower to compete with Packer fans in regards to the Packer-shareholders.But playing devils-advocate, I have to ask the obvious question.

If this business model is so amazing (which I am not disputing), why doesn't the league promote similar business models in expansion? Obviously (for whatever reason) the league wants to go the other way and seek out billionaires and they even have an interview process to review the new owners financial portfolio.

I think what faede meant to say was that in the current climate of the NFL, the financial model that is the GB organization is amazing. Promoting such a machine in the here and now is simply not feasible, however, which is why the league does not promote that sort of structure when it comes to expansion.

 

[Beergogglz]

I will field this one.

The packers themselves are a good money making team.  They are very profitable and continue to be.  They are one of the teams that will be paying into the revenue sharing pool for the new Collective Bargaining agreement.

The money they make is put into a general operating fund.  That money is used for paying signing bonuses and such where a lot of liquid money is needed.  The goal of the team is to make enough profit to continue to put money into that fund and the overall goal of that fund is to cover the Packers expenses for one full season, should the need be required.  Currently, that fund does not have enough money in it to do so.

The difference between Dan Snyder, who has a ton of disposible income outside of his profitability from the Redskins and the Packers... is that the Packers as an organization do not have anything outside of their own business to pull from if things ever got bad.

Where a single owner got rich doing "something" and then bought an NFL team when he was rich... and still has that "something" to fall back on for liquid assets... the packers are completely dependent on football revenues to pay for salaries and signing bonuses and the like.

As a financial model, the Packers are amazing.  They have by far the smallest market in all of professional sports, yet they are one of the higher revenue teams in the National Football League.

It's quite amazing if you analyze it.

I cannot refute to much of this, I just don't think I have the knowledge-firepower to compete with Packer fans in regards to the Packer-shareholders.But playing devils-advocate, I have to ask the obvious question.

If this business model is so amazing (which I am not disputing), why doesn't the league promote similar business models in expansion? Obviously (for whatever reason) the league wants to go the other way and seek out billionaires and they even have an interview process to review the new owners financial portfolio.

I think what faede meant to say was that in the current climate of the NFL, the financial model that is the GB organization is amazing. Promoting such a machine in the here and now is simply not feasible, however, which is why the league does not promote that sort of structure when it comes to expansion.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

BO - I don't understand why you would put so much work into an apparent attempt to start a thoughtful discussion, but then premise it on assumptions you seemingly made up from thin air. What is the point? Are you not aware that the Packers just three years ago invested $300MM in a renovated stadium complex (public/private) that not only expanded capacity and significantly increased club and box seating, but also turned Lambeau into a year-round destination? Lambeau now hosts conventions, weddings, parties and other special events year round. They are completely booked years in advance. They had a hockey game there last month. They added several restaurants and shops, completely renovated the Packer Hall of Fame and expanded the pro shop. The Packers are all about growth.

 

[BlueOnion]

BO - I don't understand why you would put so much work into an apparent attempt to start a thoughtful discussion, but then premise it on assumptions you seemingly made up from thin air. What is the point? Are you not aware that the Packers just three years ago invested $300MM in a renovated stadium complex (public/private) that not only expanded capacity and significantly increased club and box seating, but also turned Lambeau into a year-round destination? Lambeau now hosts conventions, weddings, parties and other special events year round. They are completely booked years in advance. They had a hockey game there last month. They added several restaurants and shops, completely renovated the Packer Hall of Fame and expanded the pro shop. The Packers are all about growth.

Just bad tack. But those were my assumptions going into the thread, so I have had to be more forgiving when I have received equal criticism back.But a couple of thoughts if Green Bay had a single owner who was genuinely interested in expanding the business:

1) Why not raise ticket prices if the waiting list for season tickets is so long? This would greatly expand the revenue being shared among the 32 NFL teams. As a non-Packer fan, I would like to see them capitalize on this potential revenue stream.

2) When will they sell the naming rights to Lambeau Field? This is another revenue stream that could be pulled into the general pool of funds by the 32 NFL franchises and another revenue stream.

I appreciate that Daniel Snyder is continually looking to explore new revenue streams in his local market (Washington) to benefit the league and the other 31 NFL Franchises, I am just wondering why the Packers choose not? I think this is outside the spirit of revenue sharing.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

The league fears the Packer model because billionaires like to be able to sell their assets. They like to be able to leverage the threat of moving for concessions from the municipalities in which they operate. Essentially capitalists find ownership by the people threatening. (I know it looks like stock ownership, but with the provisions of the corporation it can never be sold or moved, so truly the Packers are the Peoples team.)

 

[CletiusMaximus]

The difference between Dan Snyder, who has a ton of disposible income outside of his profitability from the Redskins and the Packers... is that the Packers as an organization do not have anything outside of their own business to pull from if things ever got bad.

Where a single owner got rich doing "something" and then bought an NFL team when he was rich... and still has that "something" to fall back on for liquid assets... the packers are completely dependent on football revenues to pay for salaries and signing bonuses and the like.

The flip side of course is that Dan Snyder's core business interests can hit rough spots, potentially hurting the team. This is the great fear of Manchester United fans since Malcom Glazer took their club private and saddled it with massive debt. Of course the league has safe-guards in place to prevent a total disaster, but all privately-owned franchises face the risk that ownership will take revenue out of the club as profits or to fund other operations in times of need, to the teams detriment.

 

[BlueOnion]

The difference between Dan Snyder, who has a ton of disposible income outside of his profitability from the Redskins and the Packers... is that the Packers as an organization do not have anything outside of their own business to pull from if things ever got bad.

Where a single owner got rich doing "something" and then bought an NFL team when he was rich... and still has that "something" to fall back on for liquid assets... the packers are completely dependent on football revenues to pay for salaries and signing bonuses and the like.

The flip side of course is that Dan Snyder's core business interests can hit rough spots, potentially hurting the team. This is the great fear of Manchester United fans since Malcom Glazer took their club private and saddled it with massive debt. Of course the league has safe-guards in place to prevent a total disaster, but all privately-owned franchises face the risk that ownership will take revenue out of the club as profits or to fund other operations in times of need, to the teams detriment.

EPL Clubs are a great comparison and I am thankful to have exposure to their business models as well (since I am also a huge soccer fan). But European Soccer Teams exist in what can only be described as a true free market; MLB, NFL, NBA and the NHL are clearly more socialist business models. And because of that, as you mentioned there are safe-guards in place to prevent teams from going belly-up.To be honest, I have much more of an issue with owners like the Bidwells, Rooneys and Browns who are single-family business models than I do with the Packers for the reasons you mentioned above; "that ownership will take revenue out of the club as profits or to fund other operations in times of need, to the teams detriment." These owners also need to lean on their NFL franchise to support their family and family endeavors. What happen in Cleveland with Art Modell is the best example of the potential disasters.

But the NFL is continually growing so the issue is not annual net profit but annual net growth. I am not starting to analysize clubs on their ability to grow their business, not maintain a profitable business. I would like to know how Green Bay is growing their business; not just with business endeavors but also in regards to growth relative to the other 31 NFL franchises.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

BO - I don't understand why you would put so much work into an apparent attempt to start a thoughtful discussion, but then premise it on assumptions you seemingly made up from thin air.  What is the point?  Are you not aware that the Packers just three years ago invested $300MM in a renovated stadium complex (public/private) that not only expanded capacity and significantly increased club and box seating, but also turned Lambeau into a year-round destination?  Lambeau now hosts conventions, weddings, parties and other special events year round.  They are completely booked years in advance.  They had a hockey game there last month.  They added several restaurants and shops, completely renovated the Packer Hall of Fame and expanded the pro shop.  The Packers are all about growth.

Just bad tack. But those were my assumptions going into the thread, so I have had to be more forgiving when I have received equal criticism back.But a couple of thoughts if Green Bay had a single owner who was genuinely interested in expanding the business:

1) Why not raise ticket prices if the waiting list for season tickets is so long? This would greatly expand the revenue being shared among the 32 NFL teams. As a non-Packer fan, I would like to see them capitalize on this potential revenue stream.

2) When will they sell the naming rights to Lambeau Field? This is another revenue stream that could be pulled into the general pool of funds by the 32 NFL franchises and another revenue stream.

I appreciate that Daniel Snyder is continually looking to explore new revenue streams in his local market (Washington) to benefit the league and the other 31 NFL Franchises, I am just wondering why the Packers choose not? I think this is outside the spirit of revenue sharing.

Could the Packers squeeze more revenue short term, yes no question. They could give up the "Brand name" recognition of Lambeau for something else. The profit would appear on their books, but the potential detriment of the loss of a brand name would not. The same can be said of ticket prices (which are average for the league btw) Temporarily the Packers could drive the prices up finding the level that alienates all but the minimun number of fans necessary for a sell out. The ticket revenue column in the books would sure look healthy. The problem is alienation of the fans would have equal or greater negative implications in merchandise sales, visits to the Packer HOF, events held in the atrium of the Lambeau event center, and would negatively impact fan fest and family night.The greater question is why are not other teams ingratiating themselves enough with their fans to be able to sell out a practice as do the Packers every year with their family night practice. The Packers essentially have an extra game on their schedule generating revenue. Yes, some of that revenue goes to Packer Charities, but the league gets a taste.

You would have something more than the smallest market team, and that is by 20 fold, generating revenue in the top third of the league? A more interesting question might be why should that smallest market team have to support its big brothers? Or why not expand its market to its historic boundaries, including Minnesota since it does so well. Let's send the Vikes, who are a dreg on revenue, out to L.A. to maximize league revenue.

 

[faede]

I will field this one.

The packers themselves are a good money making team.  They are very profitable and continue to be.  They are one of the teams that will be paying into the revenue sharing pool for the new Collective Bargaining agreement.

The money they make is put into a general operating fund.  That money is used for paying signing bonuses and such where a lot of liquid money is needed.  The goal of the team is to make enough profit to continue to put money into that fund and the overall goal of that fund is to cover the Packers expenses for one full season, should the need be required.  Currently, that fund does not have enough money in it to do so.

The difference between Dan Snyder, who has a ton of disposible income outside of his profitability from the Redskins and the Packers... is that the Packers as an organization do not have anything outside of their own business to pull from if things ever got bad.

Where a single owner got rich doing "something" and then bought an NFL team when he was rich... and still has that "something" to fall back on for liquid assets... the packers are completely dependent on football revenues to pay for salaries and signing bonuses and the like.

As a financial model, the Packers are amazing.  They have by far the smallest market in all of professional sports, yet they are one of the higher revenue teams in the National Football League.

It's quite amazing if you analyze it.

I cannot refute to much of this, I just don't think I have the knowledge-firepower to compete with Packer fans in regards to the Packer-shareholders.But playing devils-advocate, I have to ask the obvious question.

If this business model is so amazing (which I am not disputing), why doesn't the league promote similar business models in expansion? Obviously (for whatever reason) the league wants to go the other way and seek out billionaires and they even have an interview process to review the new owners financial portfolio.

It's impossible.The business model is based on 50 years of tradition. The fanbase is one of the biggest reason that the Packers can exist. They are usually very high in merchandise and have a lot of revenue from touristy type businesses.

A new franchise or even an existing franchise cannot possibly hope to have that sort of raw fanbase to draw from starting from day one.

Without that, I don't believe the Packers business model could exist. As I said before, it's a relatively unique situation.

 

[faede]

BO - I don't understand why you would put so much work into an apparent attempt to start a thoughtful discussion, but then premise it on assumptions you seemingly made up from thin air.  What is the point?  Are you not aware that the Packers just three years ago invested $300MM in a renovated stadium complex (public/private) that not only expanded capacity and significantly increased club and box seating, but also turned Lambeau into a year-round destination?  Lambeau now hosts conventions, weddings, parties and other special events year round.  They are completely booked years in advance.  They had a hockey game there last month.  They added several restaurants and shops, completely renovated the Packer Hall of Fame and expanded the pro shop.  The Packers are all about growth.

Just bad tack. But those were my assumptions going into the thread, so I have had to be more forgiving when I have received equal criticism back.But a couple of thoughts if Green Bay had a single owner who was genuinely interested in expanding the business:

1) Why not raise ticket prices if the waiting list for season tickets is so long? This would greatly expand the revenue being shared among the 32 NFL teams. As a non-Packer fan, I would like to see them capitalize on this potential revenue stream.

I don't think gate sales are one of the bigger revenue makers for the Packers. Ticket sales do go up now and then, but, the team likes to keep it in line with the rest of the NFL.

2) When will they sell the naming rights to Lambeau Field? This is another revenue stream that could be pulled into the general pool of funds by the 32 NFL franchises and another revenue stream.

A tricky situation. First, the City of Green Bay owns Lambeau Field. There actually was a referendum a few years ago where the city voted (in a squeaker) that the Packers should look into naming rights (the City and the Packers split the profits 50/50). The driving force was getting rid of the sales tax imposed for the packers expansion of Lambeau.The Packers and Green Bay started looking into naming rights. Well, things turned out much better then the Brown County residents thought, and the actual new income to the city/area that the new Lambeau renovations has brought much more money into the city and the repayment of debt/length of the sales tax is going to be much shorter then originally anticipated. This changed the political atmosphere, where now people started to not be so in favor of naming rights. If I recall correctly, the general consensus is.. if the referendum were brought up again today (which it would have to be once a deal was hammered out), the referendum would fail in a vote, pretty miserably. Therefore, the idea sort of fizzled out.

It's not like having one owner who just says, we're going to sell the naming rights to the stadium. Done!

The Packers get around that by selling off naming rights to pretty much everything else. Each entrence has a sponsored name for example. (a revenue that would likely dry up or at the very least lower if the Lambeau naming rights were sold) The packers have three main gate sponsors... Oneida, Verizon and Miller.

They actually do pretty well here.

I appreciate that Daniel Snyder is continually looking to explore new revenue streams in his local market (Washington) to benefit the league and the other 31 NFL Franchises, I am just wondering why the Packers choose not? I think this is outside the spirit of revenue sharing.

But the Packers do NOT "choose not". In fact, teams are coming to Green Bay to learn and implement their ideas for revenue. The Buffalo Bills actually spent a good deal of time here last offseason learning about how the Packers increased their revenue by looking into different ways to make money above and beyond the Gross Football revenue.The Packers adopted the ideas of Camden Yard and Jacobs Field in baseball. They made the stadium their money maker and turned it into a year round strategy. And it has been a brilliant strategy. A strategy that only continues to be more profitable. The Lambeau Field renovation was a pioneering move and one that made them into a solid revenue team despite their location and profit potential (being from a city of 50,000).

It was the first of its kind in the NFL. To make Lambeau Field into a 12month, 365 day money maker. And it has been successful.

And it only continues, the Packers are adding new events into Lambeau, such as the Frozen Tundra classic, a hockey game. They host a snowmobile race now. They tweaked "family night" a few years ago, a scrimmage that they sell out completely. A new thing called fan fest is a recent addition.

All of these things are revenue streams for the packers, to better take advantage of the money maker that is Lambeau Field and probably more importantly, the Lambeau Field Atrium.

If you don't think the Packers are constantly looking to improve their revenue, you're not paying attention. They just aren't doing it in the same way that the big city teams are that have more conventional ways of turning a profit.

 

[Challenge Everything]

The Packers adopted the ideas of Camden Yard and Jacobs Field in baseball. They made the stadium their money maker and turned it into a year round strategy. And it has been a brilliant strategy. A strategy that only continues to be more profitable. The Lambeau Field renovation was a pioneering move and one that made them into a solid revenue team despite their location and profit potential (being from a city of 50,000).

Green Bay is more around 105,000 people with Appleton (~30,000), Osh Kosh (~30,000), Sheboygan (~40,000) all under an hour away. It is by no means a metropolis but those communities all benefit to some degree when football season is going on. Carry on.

 

[faede]

The Packers adopted the ideas of Camden Yard and Jacobs Field in baseball.  They made the stadium their money maker and turned it into a year round strategy.  And it has been a brilliant strategy.  A strategy that only continues to be more profitable.  The Lambeau Field renovation was a pioneering move and one that made them into a solid revenue team despite their location and profit potential (being from a city of 50,000).

Green Bay is more around 105,000 people with Appleton (~30,000), Osh Kosh (~30,000), Sheboygan (~40,000) all under an hour away. It is by no means a metropolis but those communities all benefit to some degree when football season is going on. Carry on.

True, but by far, still the smallest population of any pro sports franchise.

 

[Challenge Everything]

The Packers adopted the ideas of Camden Yard and Jacobs Field in baseball.  They made the stadium their money maker and turned it into a year round strategy.  And it has been a brilliant strategy.  A strategy that only continues to be more profitable.  The Lambeau Field renovation was a pioneering move and one that made them into a solid revenue team despite their location and profit potential (being from a city of 50,000).

Green Bay is more around 105,000 people with Appleton (~30,000), Osh Kosh (~30,000), Sheboygan (~40,000) all under an hour away. It is by no means a metropolis but those communities all benefit to some degree when football season is going on. Carry on.

True, but by far, still the smallest population of any pro sports franchise.

No doubt. Just clarifying the 50,000 comment made earlier. Green Bay itself is more near 105,000 and that does not include Ashwaubenon, De Pere, and other near suburbs... Metro Green Bay may equal near 150,000 give or take. Just saying.

 

[Red Herring]

BO - I don't understand why you would put so much work into an apparent attempt to start a thoughtful discussion, but then premise it on assumptions you seemingly made up from thin air.  What is the point?  Are you not aware that the Packers just three years ago invested $300MM in a renovated stadium complex (public/private) that not only expanded capacity and significantly increased club and box seating, but also turned Lambeau into a year-round destination?  Lambeau now hosts conventions, weddings, parties and other special events year round.  They are completely booked years in advance.  They had a hockey game there last month.  They added several restaurants and shops, completely renovated the Packer Hall of Fame and expanded the pro shop.  The Packers are all about growth.

Just bad tack. But those were my assumptions going into the thread, so I have had to be more forgiving when I have received equal criticism back.But a couple of thoughts if Green Bay had a single owner who was genuinely interested in expanding the business:

1) Why not raise ticket prices if the waiting list for season tickets is so long? This would greatly expand the revenue being shared among the 32 NFL teams. As a non-Packer fan, I would like to see them capitalize on this potential revenue stream.

2) When will they sell the naming rights to Lambeau Field? This is another revenue stream that could be pulled into the general pool of funds by the 32 NFL franchises and another revenue stream.

I appreciate that Daniel Snyder is continually looking to explore new revenue streams in his local market (Washington) to benefit the league and the other 31 NFL Franchises, I am just wondering why the Packers choose not? I think this is outside the spirit of revenue sharing.

You just mentioned 2 of the things I hate most as a fan of the NFL.

 

[Pipes]

Good topic here Blue O.  Interesting and not of the norm. 

Very interesting, other than the fact that all his assumptions were wrong.

I very well could be wrong, but I am still interested how the Packers are spending their revenue; in large part because the NFL is based on sharing revenue.

BlueOnion,No need to even respond....since you could talk yourself blue in the face for the next 60 years, but if it doesn't match the world view of someone wearing Green and Gold glasses, your facts/opinions will be run through the sausage grinder. Just accept that simple fact and move on.

Just be happy that you have more to do in the Twin Cities than drink, bowl and follow a football team.

That's hilarious...I've never heard someone crack on Green Bay like that before.

 

[datonn]

That's hilarious...I've never heard someone crack on Green Bay like that before.

EXACTLY! It's kinda like hearing a drunken Packer fan saying "How many Super Bowls has your team won?" for the 3,000th time when their team on the field (currently) is nothing to write home about and they weren't even alive for all but one of those titles. Green Bay, Wisconsin is the western side of St. Cloud, MN with a pro football team...nothing more, nothing less. St. Norbert College is cool, Lambeau Field is definitely worth a visit (just to see what the "cult" business is all about), and that bus tour of some of the locals sights and sounds is absolutely HILARIOUS! Other than that though, I wouldn't spend five minutes there if I didn't have to. It's no wonder that people paint their houses/cars green and gold and name their kids after Packers players...'cuz it at least takes their mind off of the h*ll-hole they have to live and work in. :X (Green and Gold)

 

[CletiusMaximus]

St. Norbert College is cool, Lambeau Field is definitely worth a visit (just to see what the "cult" business is all about), and that bus tour of some of the locals sights and sounds is absolutely HILARIOUS! Other than that though, I wouldn't spend five minutes there if I didn't have to.

not joking now - did you really take a bus tour of Green Bay?

 

[sho nuff]

I appreciate that Daniel Snyder is continually looking to explore new revenue streams in his local market (Washington) to benefit the league and the other 31 NFL Franchises, I am just wondering why the Packers choose not? I think this is outside the spirit of revenue sharing.

Daniel Snyder does not look to explore new revenue for the league's benefit...he does it for his own...

 

[sho nuff]

You would have something more than the smallest market team, and that is by 20 fold, generating revenue in the top third of the league? A more interesting question might be why should that smallest market team have to support its big brothers?

 

[sho nuff]

That's hilarious...I've never heard someone crack on Green Bay like that before.

EXACTLY! It's kinda like hearing a drunken Packer fan saying "How many Super Bowls has your team won?" for the 3,000th time when their team on the field (currently) is nothing to write home about and they weren't even alive for all but one of those titles. Green Bay, Wisconsin is the western side of St. Cloud, MN with a pro football team...nothing more, nothing less. St. Norbert College is cool, Lambeau Field is definitely worth a visit (just to see what the "cult" business is all about), and that bus tour of some of the locals sights and sounds is absolutely HILARIOUS! Other than that though, I wouldn't spend five minutes there if I didn't have to.

It's no wonder that people paint their houses/cars green and gold and name their kids after Packers players...'cuz it at least takes their mind off of the h*ll-hole they have to live and work in.

:X (Green and Gold)

Ahhh...ignorance...

 

[datonn]

St. Norbert College is cool, Lambeau Field is definitely worth a visit (just to see what the "cult" business is all about), and that bus tour of some of the locals sights and sounds is absolutely HILARIOUS! Other than that though, I wouldn't spend five minutes there if I didn't have to.

not joking now - did you really take a bus tour of Green Bay?

DEAD SERIOUS. It was part of a small conference that a bunch of folks attended in Green Bay. They got 25-30 people on a bus, with one of the local senior citizens as the M.C. Folks got to see ALL the Catholic churches, see the latest chain-restaurant that opened in town, hear stories of people she knew who were buried in the adjacent cemetaries, "3rd biggest ball of belly-button lint this side of the Mississippi" kind of other stuff, etc. People thought it was so incredibly ridiculous and "small town" that all they could do was laugh.I'm obviously just doing a little on the whole "Green Bay" schtick. It's your typical small-metro sea of blah architecture, one story commercial and industrial buildings that look like they were ordered out of a catalog, lots of chain store and restaurants, etc. It doesn't COMPLETELY suck.....unlike the City of Detroit in the 80s and 90s. I highly recommend the bus tour though......better than a night of stand-up comedy, for sure!