Lucky Luciano Posted March 12, 2009 Report Share Posted March 12, 2009 Still missing the point. $21m, per the report, put them amont the top revenue teams in the NFL. First, I would argue $21m is less than what i think many fans would expect. Second, I would point out that $21m ranks among the top tier revenue teams. What do the lower teams profit? If $21m is aroung top 10, what does the bottom 10 look like? $1m? $5M? so what are you suggesting? that we wipe the board clean and go back to the system of the 20's-80's? players can work for minimum wage with no benefits including medical or retirement? no rights of free agency? robber baron owners? i'm sure trickle down economics will work terrific in the nfl again. Third, as the article points out, that $21m was a huge year for GB, and around $10m higher than the previous season, meaning something more like $11m would have been a more usual profit. after paying all expenses including top CEO salaries!! how many mccaskey’s are on the payroll that comes out of these franchise expenses before net profits are calculated and for how much? Fourth, take away the top tier teams, if the rest profit more along the lines of $5 or $10m, that doesn't leave a ton of "extra cash" or "cash on hand". For example, the article also pointed out how teams are trying to put back money in case of emergency, like if there is a strike or lockout. Further, and I do not know how much GB spent in FA or on extensions, but how would that profit margin look if they, as we have of late, shelled out massive contracts on player extensions. stop it... you’re breaking my heart. Fifth, what does the future look like? If a team is making around $10m in profit today, what happens in another couple years as players salaries continues to rise exponentially? uhhh, you mean after the salary cap and owners share goes up? isn’t that what is generating the rise in contract sizes? compare the cap today to 10 years ago. You harp on $21m, but the article even says that is likley around top 10 tier. You do not seem to give thought to what the lower half of the league profits. Yea, $1 or $5m is a huge deal for you and I. Hey, I would take it. But how many major companys do you know of that would agree? And enough of the big oil companies who are getting $500 BILLION profits per year. Comparing and NFL team w/ them is like trying to compare an NFL team w/ a mom and pop plumbing company that has a 1/2 dozen clients. this is pretty comical. YOU pull a lowball figure out of your arse and then argue points in reference like it was a fact! in reality, these are sport franchises that operate 4 ½ months a freakin year to generate income. the absolute maximum number of games they can possibly play per year is 20 and ½ of those are on the road! how much more profit do you think they ‘should’ generate and where do you think this added income should come from? and finally........ this is a day to remember when i am arguing with a person that thinks the bidwell and mccaskey type of owners are being mistreated and deserve, not only sympathy, but more money from the players and fans. it's simply mindboggling (but it does put a smile on my face i give you that). here’s an idea, start a charity fund and organize a food drive for the bidwell and mccaskey families to help them through these hard times. individuals in their respective communities can just drop off donations at the servants entrance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted March 12, 2009 Report Share Posted March 12, 2009 so what are you suggesting? that we wipe the board clean and go back to the system of the 20's-80's? players can work for minimum wage with no benefits including medical or retirement? no rights of free agency? robber baron owners? i'm sure trickle down economics will work terrific in the nfl again. I have always felt it an act of desperation when someone has to use such extreme examples to try and prove a point. Yea, that is what I am suggesting. Players should make the same as my car wash guy. Give me a break. What I do find funny is, I think few fans realize how many players actually make more than the owners. I think there is a perception the owners are raking it in, and yet this report would seem to contradict that. Am I saying anything extreme should be done? No. In fact, I don't recall stating any action should be taken. Only putting a question to the idea our owners are so rich and pocketing too much. If I were to recommend actions though, yes, I would alter some of the pay structures. I would immediately begin w/ the draft. I consider it a crock a player totally unproven on the NFL level gets paid equal to the leagues top tier elite. after paying all expenses including top CEO salaries!! how many mccaskey’s are on the payroll that comes out of these franchise expenses before net profits are calculated and for how much? Hey, it is quite possible, and I would absolutely love to know. Maybe the team profits $10m after Mikey (for example) is paid a $100m salary. I have no clue. Nor do you though. stop it... you’re breaking my heart. Your not a little girl, so I could care less if your heart is broken. It is simply business reality though. In all the time you have bashed the team and ownership for being cheap, I bet you were under the impression the team was racking in the profits. At least, that has always been the impression you have given. Sorry, but to find out our team might only profit $5m (or whatever the amount is) should be somewhat shocking, and yet you choose to simply write it off. uhhh, you mean after the salary cap and owners share goes up? isn’t that what is generating the rise in contract sizes? compare the cap today to 10 years ago. Actually, I am thinking far more about bonus dollars. You can talk about how it all works out in the end, but an ownership has only so much actual cash. Only a few years ago, a $20m bonus was simply shocking, and now we are seeing $30m bonuses being paid out. Sorry, but you can talk until you are blue in the face, the smaller market teams and the owners who do not have seperate cash cow businesses simply are going to be left behind in terms of ability to go after the top FAs because they can not afford to pay out the bonuses being talked about. It is about cash, plain and simple, and a team that only profits $5-10m per year is simply not going to have the cash to shell out the bonuses like other teams who have owners w/ other businesses that can supplement their cash on hand. this is pretty comical. YOU pull a lowball figure out of your arse and then argue points in reference like it was a fact! I have many times said I don't know, and yet I try and use logic and reasoning. If the $21m GB made in profit is around top 10, do you think there is only a difference of a couple million between the top 10 and bottom 10? I think it VERY reasonable to believe there is a greater gap between the top earning teams and the bottom earning teams. Then there is the 2nd aspect of this. Where do the Bears fit in. Well, we do not own our own stadium, which is going to lessen our profits compared to other teams. Even though we stadium is essentially new, it has the smallest capacity of all NFL stadiums. When Dallas new stadium opens, do you realize they will have a capacity around 30,000 more than us? So small stadium we do not even own. Then factor the low number of home playoff games, and the profits continue to drop. Sorry, but I think it very reasonable to believe our franchise is no where near the top tier, and likely not even in the middle tier. I would suspect we are in the bottom 10 in terms of profit. Thus why I talk about a profit of $5m-10m. I do not take this as fact. Not even close. But I do believe it is a logical belief. Have you offered anything to support different? Do you have anything to offer that would support a belief our team is high in the profits food chain? in reality, these are sport franchises that operate 4 ½ months a freakin year to generate income. the absolute maximum number of games they can possibly play per year is 20 and ½ of those are on the road! how much more profit do you think they ‘should’ generate and where do you think this added income should come from? Well, when mediocre players begin getting $5-10m signing bonuses, and the top tier get more like $20m or more, than I think you have to see greater profits, otherwise your team is going to simply be unable to compete w/ the big boys. How much is enough? Who knows. But unless something is done about the cash players are getting up front, the teams that do not earn as great of profits are simply going to have a difficult time finding the cash on hand to compete at such a level. and finally........ this is a day to remember when i am arguing with a person that thinks the bidwell and mccaskey type of owners are being mistreated and deserve, not only sympathy, but more money from the players and fans. it's simply mindboggling (but it does put a smile on my face i give you that). When did I EVER say they should get more money from the fans. I think ticket prices are already a joke. However, I do believe owners deserve a greater share. Sorry, but you want me to feel sorry for the players? Yea, right. And I never said we should give any owner sympathy. I only advocate greater understanding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LT2_3 Posted March 12, 2009 Report Share Posted March 12, 2009 Just a few quick points: 1. I think that one of the key issues here is that Lucky (aka choad) doesn't understand the term 'profit' in this context. When a person buys something and sells it for a 'profit', it means extra income that you can put in your pocket and spend on whatever you want like a new ipod. In terms of a corporation, 'profit' means the amount of money brought in over what was spent during a fiscal year. Sometimes it goes back to investors as a return on their investment - which needs to be done in many cases or else there would be no point in someone investing in the first place. The other thing that companies do, is put it in a cash reserve for future business expenditures so that they don't have to borrow money to do what they need to do. When that happens, it has nothing to do with being cheap or miserly, but everything to do with having a healthy company that is further away from having to close their doors. 2. One question I have for any stock analyst out there, is how much profit is reasonable for an average corporation to earn on $241 million per year? In the only data we have available, the Packers brought in $241 million in revenue and showed a $21 million profit. That's only a 9% profit margin - in what is described as a great year. Is that good for a corporation? I would think not. 3. I don't hink anyone is arguing that the players should go back to the old system, but I think they should modify what's in place so that teams can have a bit more money in their coffers in case of emergency. This economy has me worried. Think about that $21 million in profit for a minute. Subtract $8 million if they hadn't reached the playoffs, $4 million for poor jersey sales in a bad economy, $4 million in fewer concession sales because people are spending less at the game, and say they lose another $8 million from sponsorships from companies that can't afford it in the weakened economy and that banner year just turned into a year with a net loss instead of profit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted March 12, 2009 Report Share Posted March 12, 2009 2. One question I have for any stock analyst out there, is how much profit is reasonable for an average corporation to earn on $241 million per year? In the only data we have available, the Packers brought in $241 million in revenue and showed a $21 million profit. That's only a 9% profit margin - in what is described as a great year. Is that good for a corporation? I would think not. Not a stock analist by any means: but I can say I'd love to average 9% in the market. I do, however, think that NFL teams have a much easier time predicting future income than any corporation I can think of. The TV contracts make up such a huge portion of the pot that the smaller pieces don't sway the overall percentage as much as Auto, Retail and Pharma. It's like they have a crystal ball for the most part. I've been loving this conversation looking from the outside. Keep up the good debate! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted March 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 12, 2009 I'm an accountant... 1. Profit is profit regardless. It is that revenue which exceeds normal costs of business. It can get a little tricky in terms of depreciation and other things, but generally speaking, it's used as figure after everything. Otherwise you use terms like Gross Margin (Earnings after Cost of Sales), EBITDA (Earnings before Income Tax and Depreciation and Amortization), etc.... In general, profit is pure profit... Although, as your discussion have proven, it's sometimes used a little too loosely. 2. I'm not a stock analyst, but a tremendous profit point for many businesses is 5% (at least in the entertainment industry where I work...and I imagine sports is similar). That would mean in your example, anything above and beyond $12M in profit for a company pulling in revenues of $241M is quite good. 9% is quite phenominal... Again, if we are talking true profit. 3. A loss is also a possible loss only on paper. You could be cash rich and have a loss due to depreciation of assets. Without really seeing the Income Stmt and Balance Sheets, it's a little tough to really tell. But, my gut feeling, is that these teams are making boat-loads. The media revenue is silly regardless of what their operating costs are... Just a few quick points: 1. I think that one of the key issues here is that Lucky (aka choad) doesn't understand the term 'profit' in this context. When a person buys something and sells it for a 'profit', it means extra income that you can put in your pocket and spend on whatever you want like a new ipod. In terms of a corporation, 'profit' means the amount of money brought in over what was spent during a fiscal year. Sometimes it goes back to investors as a return on their investment - which needs to be done in many cases or else there would be no point in someone investing in the first place. The other thing that companies do, is put it in a cash reserve for future business expenditures so that they don't have to borrow money to do what they need to do. When that happens, it has nothing to do with being cheap or miserly, but everything to do with having a healthy company that is further away from having to close their doors. 2. One question I have for any stock analyst out there, is how much profit is reasonable for an average corporation to earn on $241 million per year? In the only data we have available, the Packers brought in $241 million in revenue and showed a $21 million profit. That's only a 9% profit margin - in what is described as a great year. Is that good for a corporation? I would think not. 3. I don't hink anyone is arguing that the players should go back to the old system, but I think they should modify what's in place so that teams can have a bit more money in their coffers in case of emergency. This economy has me worried. Think about that $21 million in profit for a minute. Subtract $8 million if they hadn't reached the playoffs, $4 million for poor jersey sales in a bad economy, $4 million in fewer concession sales because people are spending less at the game, and say they lose another $8 million from sponsorships from companies that can't afford it in the weakened economy and that banner year just turned into a year with a net loss instead of profit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted March 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 12, 2009 You're 100% correct about the revenue stream...they basically have a pretty solid 5 year projection that most companies would dream of... Not a stock analist by any means: but I can say I'd love to average 9% in the market. I do, however, think that NFL teams have a much easier time predicting future income than any corporation I can think of. The TV contracts make up such a huge portion of the pot that the smaller pieces don't sway the overall percentage as much as Auto, Retail and Pharma. It's like they have a crystal ball for the most part. I've been loving this conversation looking from the outside. Keep up the good debate! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DABEARSDABOMB Posted March 12, 2009 Report Share Posted March 12, 2009 Hey madlith, do you work in public accounting or did you ever? I'm an accountant too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted March 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 12, 2009 My condolences! Thankfully it's a secure job though! But no, I never worked the public sector. When I was in college (many moons ago...I graduated in '93), public was pushed on us so hard, that I rebelled against it. Not to mention, I wanted to work in the music business... So I went right into the private sector. Keeping contact w/ many collleagues through the years, we noticed that my salary was higher in the private sector initially and gradually rose pretty evenly. Wheareas the public guys started off lower, then had a big jump. 10-15 years later, we're all in the same boat barring the handful that went for MBA's... Some doing much better, some not so much. Although the CPA can open a few more doors, generally direct experience is what usually opens the most doors I've found. Are you in public or private? Hey madlith, do you work in public accounting or did you ever? I'm an accountant too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucky Luciano Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 I have always felt it an act of desperation when someone has to use such extreme examples to try and prove a point. you mean like suggesting with no basis in fact that owners could make as little profit as $1M?... "If $21m is aroung top 10, what does the bottom 10 look like? $1m? $5M?" or... "What I do find funny is, I think few fans realize how many players actually make more than the owners." you are correct in one aspect, it IS funny to suggest that individual players actually make more money over their careers as owners do over theirs. If I were to recommend actions though, yes, I would alter some of the pay structures. I would immediately begin w/ the draft. I consider it a crock a player totally unproven on the NFL level gets paid equal to the leagues top tier elite. so instead of giving this portion of the fair share of the purse (that the owners signed and agreed to be fair in their eyes) to veterans instead of mega rookie salaries and bonuses you want to give it to the owners? Hey, it is quite possible, and I would absolutely love to know. Maybe the team profits $10m after Mikey (for example) is paid a $100m salary. I have no clue. Nor do you though. i have some 10 year old '98 information on personel (yes i know things have changed but just as an example): chairman of the board - ed mccaskey; president CEO - mike mccaskey; director of community involvement - pat mccaskey; ticket manager - george mccaskey; office staff administration - tim mccaskey; director of player personel - brian mccaskey. any bet that there may be some spouces, sisters, sisters children, uncles or cousins employed? Actually, I am thinking far more about bonus dollars. You can talk about how it all works out in the end, but an ownership has only so much actual cash. Only a few years ago, a $20m bonus was simply shocking, and now we are seeing $30m bonuses being paid out. Sorry, but you can talk until you are blue in the face, the smaller market teams and the owners who do not have seperate cash cow businesses simply are going to be left behind in terms of ability to go after the top FAs because they can not afford to pay out the bonuses being talked about. It is about cash, plain and simple, and a team that only profits $5-10m per year is simply not going to have the cash to shell out the bonuses like other teams who have owners w/ other businesses that can supplement their cash on hand. and you just think that when "bonus money" is paid out they just call virginia to cut them a check out of her christmas account? in fact maybe she does. that way she could get a better interest rate on her money when she loans it to her own corporation instead of borrowing it from a bank!! I have many times said I don't know, and yet I try and use logic and reasoning. If the $21m GB made in profit is around top 10, do you think there is only a difference of a couple million between the top 10 and bottom 10? I think it VERY reasonable to believe there is a greater gap between the top earning teams and the bottom earning teams. Then there is the 2nd aspect of this. Where do the Bears fit in. Well, we do not own our own stadium, which is going to lessen our profits compared to other teams. Even though we stadium is essentially new, it has the smallest capacity of all NFL stadiums. When Dallas new stadium opens, do you realize they will have a capacity around 30,000 more than us? So small stadium we do not even own. Then factor the low number of home playoff games, and the profits continue to drop. Sorry, but I think it very reasonable to believe our franchise is no where near the top tier, and likely not even in the middle tier. I would suspect we are in the bottom 10 in terms of profit. Thus why I talk about a profit of $5m-10m. I do not take this as fact. Not even close. But I do believe it is a logical belief. Have you offered anything to support different? Do you have anything to offer that would support a belief our team is high in the profits food chain? logical or reasonable in what aspect? you have ONE instance of reported profit in the entire nfl and you "logically" deduct from that profit margins? just to open up another can of worms... if the bears had a stadium that held 500,000 they don't get exclusive ticket sale receipts anyway. this is one of the items that goes into a pool to be shared among the league. what they do/or did get was sky box cash if i am not mistaken (and well could be without rereading the old CBA again or reading the new one) and probably a few other perks. Well, when mediocre players begin getting $5-10m signing bonuses, and the top tier get more like $20m or more, than I think you have to see greater profits, otherwise your team is going to simply be unable to compete w/ the big boys. How much is enough? Who knows. But unless something is done about the cash players are getting up front, the teams that do not earn as great of profits are simply going to have a difficult time finding the cash on hand to compete at such a level. again and again i have to keep telling you that it's paid for from the allottment from the collective nfl to pay player salaries!! when that rises so do the salaries for players AND the owners!!!! the only way it is not is if you believe taking money out of player salary allottments is just part of the owners profit plan they are entitled to. so if the players are not entitled to the percentages written in the contract WHY did the owners sign such an agreement???????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 so instead of giving this portion of the fair share of the purse (that the owners signed and agreed to be fair in their eyes) to veterans instead of mega rookie salaries and bonuses you want to give it to the owners? Not at all. I would simply prefer it went to the veterans. How bad is it when teams no longer seem to want the #1 pick in the draft due to the cost? You still have the cap floor, thus teams have to spend the money. But if they don't have to fork over the massive deals to the top rookies, they would have more to spend on FAs who have earned the money. Think about this. The worst team is rewarded w/ the top pick in the draft, but due to how much they are going to have to spend on that top pick, they are limited in what they can do in FA, and are limited in upgrading the team. And you can say trade down, but of late, teams have not seemed to want to move up to the top spot. I am not trying to take away from the veterans, I just think what rookies make is ridiculous. I would also like to see a cap on bonuses, but no clue how I would make that happen. And again, just because I would limit the bonus dollars to veterans doesn't mean I would limit the money overall spent. This is not my trying to put more money in the pocket of owners, but more looking at how money is spent. i have some 10 year old '98 information on personel (yes i know things have changed but just as an example): chairman of the board - ed mccaskey; president CEO - mike mccaskey; director of community involvement - pat mccaskey; ticket manager - george mccaskey; office staff administration - tim mccaskey; director of player personel - brian mccaskey. any bet that there may be some spouces, sisters, sisters children, uncles or cousins employed? But unless you can tell me how much each are paid each year, I am not sure what is the point. and you just think that when "bonus money" is paid out they just call virginia to cut them a check out of her christmas account? in fact maybe she does. that way she could get a better interest rate on her money when she loans it to her own corporation instead of borrowing it from a bank!! Huh? Lost you a bit on this one. The point is simply that while teams may have X amount of dollars to spend each year, they often go well over that amount due to bonus dollars spent. The point is, if you don't earn solid profits each year, and are thus able to create a sizable cash account for future years, you are not going to be able to go out and get those top tier FAs who command $20-30m bonuses. logical or reasonable in what aspect? you have ONE instance of reported profit in the entire nfl and you "logically" deduct from that profit margins? One, it is the only report we have to go off. Two, I am using logic and reasoning based on that report. Your retort is what exactly? just to open up another can of worms... if the bears had a stadium that held 500,000 they don't get exclusive ticket sale receipts anyway. this is one of the items that goes into a pool to be shared among the league. what they do/or did get was sky box cash if i am not mistaken (and well could be without rereading the old CBA again or reading the new one) and probably a few other perks. Beyond ticket sales, what about parking, concessions and the like. Unless it is part of what was recently changed, it is my understanding a team keeps these sort of profits for themselves, which is also why, until we got our new stadium deal, we always had less money to spend. As we didn't own our stadium, we didn't have these profits. But under our new deal, while we do not own the stadium still, we did negotiate to keep these profits. again and again i have to keep telling you that it's paid for from the allottment from the collective nfl to pay player salaries!! when that rises so do the salaries for players AND the owners!!!! the only way it is not is if you believe taking money out of player salary allottments is just part of the owners profit plan they are entitled to. And again and again I, and Lt2, have tried to point out how teams often will spend over the cap, and do so w/ bonus dollars which are spread out over the life of the deal. Thus, teams can shell out big bonuses and end up spending well over the money provided by the shared revenue. so if the players are not entitled to the percentages written in the contract WHY did the owners sign such an agreement???????? Well, it seems like the owners regret the deal. And understand, I am not nearly as hard set on taking money away from the players as I am for wanting to cut the top rookie deals and bonuses that have gone so high that I think smaller market teams, and those who do not see as great of profits, will struggle to afford more and more. Just because I want to see rookie deals and bonuses change does not mean I am trying to put more money in the owners pocket. But if there was a way to better limit the upfront money a team can pay to a player, then I would argue a better job would be done to even the playing field. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LT2_3 Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 Not a stock analist by any means: but I can say I'd love to average 9% in the market. I do, however, think that NFL teams have a much easier time predicting future income than any corporation I can think of. The TV contracts make up such a huge portion of the pot that the smaller pieces don't sway the overall percentage as much as Auto, Retail and Pharma. It's like they have a crystal ball for the most part. I've been loving this conversation looking from the outside. Keep up the good debate! The qualifier that I think needs to be noted is that the Packers earned 9% in what was described a phenominal year. I'm looking forward to seeing the financial report for 2008. It'll be interesting to see what their profit was without 2 playoff games and the associated parking, concessions, and jersey sales. Just as a point of reference, with a capacity of 72,928 and an estimated price of $100 per ticket, that's an extra $7,292,800 in additional revenues per game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted March 13, 2009 Report Share Posted March 13, 2009 Lt2, What is shared and what does a team keep. I think it used to be that a team's ticket sales went into the shared "pot" but ancillary profits like concessions, parking, etc, the team kept. Is that still the case? How about merchandise? Frankly, at the end of the day, this is one of those arguments no one can win, at least not unless the teams open up the books. A team can show a profit of $5m, but we have no idea what sort of salary and bonuses the execs (the McCaskey's) are giving themselves, and thus no way to know how legit that $5m profit is. Big difference in that final number depending on whether Virginia (for example) has a salary of $250k or $25m, or whether she has a profit sharing deal in place. Point is, unless the books are opened up, it is all speculation. That is one thing that could be interesting to see in the next CBA negotiations. If the owners claim to be going broke, and are trying hard to push the NFLPA's to reduce their %, I think the owners will have to open up their books. We may not have access to that data, but you can bet the report ends up going public, and we will see more date than ever before. The qualifier that I think needs to be noted is that the Packers earned 9% in what was described a phenominal year. I'm looking forward to seeing the financial report for 2008. It'll be interesting to see what their profit was without 2 playoff games and the associated parking, concessions, and jersey sales. Just as a point of reference, with a capacity of 72,928 and an estimated price of $100 per ticket, that's an extra $7,292,800 in additional revenues per game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DABEARSDABOMB Posted March 14, 2009 Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 My condolences! Thankfully it's a secure job though! But no, I never worked the public sector. When I was in college (many moons ago...I graduated in '93), public was pushed on us so hard, that I rebelled against it. Not to mention, I wanted to work in the music business... So I went right into the private sector. Keeping contact w/ many collleagues through the years, we noticed that my salary was higher in the private sector initially and gradually rose pretty evenly. Wheareas the public guys started off lower, then had a big jump. 10-15 years later, we're all in the same boat barring the handful that went for MBA's... Some doing much better, some not so much. Although the CPA can open a few more doors, generally direct experience is what usually opens the most doors I've found. Are you in public or private? Tell me about, everyone was pushing public out of college. I opted for Pulblic and just finished up my first full year as a senior at Deloitte, but today was my last day. I left for a position in private, which will start in three weeks and am going to go back for my MBA in September at USC (going to do the part time program, which will enable me to take classes in Irvine, which is where I live, for the first 1/2 years of the program). I heard all about the job security but right now its been ugly, all I've seen are severe layoffs since I started but luckily I was able to survive them and still ended up finding a good job to leave for. I'm hoping to go back to Deloitte though after my MBA but on the consulting side. I definately agree with you on the experience aspect though and I look forward to getting to work with two major systems at my new gig (going to be a senior analyst right now, but they told me that they have a manager spot groomed for me in 6 months, who knows whether thats true or not). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted March 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 Good deal! I keep thinking about getting my MBA...but I get scared off losing too much of my already far too little free time! Hopelly this new position will springboard you into the mgmt slot you're hoping for! Tell me about, everyone was pushing public out of college. I opted for Pulblic and just finished up my first full year as a senior at Deloitte, but today was my last day. I left for a position in private, which will start in three weeks and am going to go back for my MBA in September at USC (going to do the part time program, which will enable me to take classes in Irvine, which is where I live, for the first 1/2 years of the program). I heard all about the job security but right now its been ugly, all I've seen are severe layoffs since I started but luckily I was able to survive them and still ended up finding a good job to leave for. I'm hoping to go back to Deloitte though after my MBA but on the consulting side. I definately agree with you on the experience aspect though and I look forward to getting to work with two major systems at my new gig (going to be a senior analyst right now, but they told me that they have a manager spot groomed for me in 6 months, who knows whether thats true or not). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucky Luciano Posted March 16, 2009 Report Share Posted March 16, 2009 Not at all. I would simply prefer it went to the veterans. How bad is it when teams no longer seem to want the #1 pick in the draft due to the cost? You still have the cap floor, thus teams have to spend the money. But if they don't have to fork over the massive deals to the top rookies, they would have more to spend on FAs who have earned the money. I would also like to see a cap on bonuses, but no clue how I would make that happen. And again, just because I would limit the bonus dollars to veterans doesn't mean I would limit the money overall spent. This is not my trying to put more money in the pocket of owners, but more looking at how money is spent. 1. i too think these rookie signings are way out of line but the bottom line is... how do you fix it? if it was easy and do-able it would have been done in the last two agreements. how would you regulate it? a cap on slot in the draft they were picked? this has major problems trying to enforce. does the top qb get the same money as a top linebacker picked at #1? do you have a cap on which position is more valuable? how long are the contracts you can pay these players the stunted salary? what if a player makes the pro-bowl in these salary challenged years? what is the difference paid in round 1 compared to other rounds? isn't each player going to want the limited max he can get paid no matter what the quality? 2. how can you cap bonus money? this is the only guaranteed amount they make in the contract. would you change it to read that the contract signed gets paid in full whether the player is cut or injured? so it wouldn't matter if a player gets cut or whatever he still gets the money he signed for every year? what is that going to do to the teams salary cap? i have some 10 year old '98 information on personel (yes i know things have changed but just as an example): chairman of the board - ed mccaskey; president CEO - mike mccaskey; director of community involvement - pat mccaskey; ticket manager - george mccaskey; office staff administration - tim mccaskey; director of player personel - brian mccaskey. any bet that there may be some spouces, sisters, sisters children, uncles or cousins employed? But unless you can tell me how much each are paid each year, I am not sure what is the point. the point was to show how private owners can pad the payroll by hiring not only THEMSELVES, but relatives and friends. the possibility these salaried relatives share in the profits is still a real consideration as to how much owners actually make. and you just think that when "bonus money" is paid out they just call virginia to cut them a check out of her christmas account? in fact maybe she does. that way she could get a better interest rate on her money when she loans it to her own corporation instead of borrowing it from a bank!! Huh? Lost you a bit on this one. The point is simply that while teams may have X amount of dollars to spend each year, they often go well over that amount due to bonus dollars spent. The point is, if you don't earn solid profits each year, and are thus able to create a sizable cash account for future years, you are not going to be able to go out and get those top tier FAs who command $20-30m bonuses. the point is that you are inferring that bonus money somehow comes out of the owners revenue they were paid each year, as their portion of what the nfl doled out, or it comes out of their own personal bank accounts. that somehow they need $20-30 M in cash at hand to pay these bonuses. this is clearly NOT the case. any owner can compete with any other in paying out these amounts whether well heeled or not. it costs them nothing unless you consider the money the nfl allotted for salary is included in their profit plan. so if the players are not entitled to the percentages written in the contract WHY did the owners sign such an agreement???????? Well, it seems like the owners regret the deal. And understand, I am not nearly as hard set on taking money away from the players as I am for wanting to cut the top rookie deals and bonuses that have gone so high that I think smaller market teams, and those who do not see as great of profits, will struggle to afford more and more. Just because I want to see rookie deals and bonuses change does not mean I am trying to put more money in the owners pocket. But if there was a way to better limit the upfront money a team can pay to a player, then I would argue a better job would be done to even the playing field. how can they "regret the deal" when they have signed a new contract with the players at least twice? i too would like to see rookie money relief but i don't know how to regulate it fairly - read above. for the rest read below: again and again i have to keep telling you that it's paid for from the allottment from the collective nfl to pay player salaries!! when that rises so do the salaries for players AND the owners!!!! the only way it is not is if you believe taking money out of player salary allottments is just part of the owners profit plan they are entitled to. And again and again I, and Lt2, have tried to point out how teams often will spend over the cap, and do so w/ bonus dollars which are spread out over the life of the deal. Thus, teams can shell out big bonuses and end up spending well over the money provided by the shared revenue. and yes, again and again and again i understand how they can spend temorarily more that the salary cap limit is in a designated season. i GET IT. look, i am not trying to be facetious or an ass hat in saying this, but... do you not understand what i have been telling you all these months on how this large bonus money can be paid strickly out of the share of player salary allottment? that no money comes out of the owners own personal bank accounts? that it doesn't take rich franchises to do this? i have shown examples and models in the past, yet you seem to come back to the same wrong assessment time and time again. if you don't understand this just say so and i can try to explain it in great detail for you if you ask. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LT2_3 Posted March 16, 2009 Report Share Posted March 16, 2009 look, i am not trying to be facetious or an ass hat in saying this, but... do you not understand what i have been telling you all these months on how this large bonus money can be paid strickly out of the share of player salary allottment? that no money comes out of the owners own personal bank accounts? that it doesn't take rich franchises to do this? i have shown examples and models in the past, yet you seem to come back to the same wrong assessment time and time again. if you don't understand this just say so and i can try to explain it in great detail for you if you ask. And I'll be happy to explain further to you that there is no "player salary allottment" one more time. Teams do get a large portion of their annual income from the league. Teams do have a salary cap and a salary floor. Those two items are not related. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucky Luciano Posted March 16, 2009 Report Share Posted March 16, 2009 And I'll be happy to explain further to you that there is no "player salary allottment" one more time. Teams do get a large portion of their annual income from the league. Teams do have a salary cap and a salary floor. Those two items are not related. well what do YOU call it then? if a *DGR percentage isn’t “**allotted” to them then how is “a large portion of their annual income from the league” paid???? is it some mysterious amount of money that shows up unexpectedly in their bank accounts that nobody can account for? not related? are you now going to tell me there aren’t specified percentages of the defined gross revenue paid to the owners to pay the players out of? just exactly what is the point of your entire post? **Main Entry: al·lot·ment 1: the act of allotting : apportionment 2: something that is allotted ; especially chiefly British : a plot of land let to an individual for cultivation hmmmm, now let’s see what “apportioning” means: Main Entry: ap·por·tion Inflected Form(s): ap·por·tioned; ap·por·tion·ing \-sh(ə-)niŋ\ Etymology: Middle French apportionner, from a- (from Latin ad-) + portionner to portion : to divide and share out according to a plan ; especially : to make a proportionate division or distribution of finally let’s look at the thesaurus: Entry Word: allotment Text: 1 a sum of money allotted for a specific use by official or formal action— see appropriation 2 something belonging to, due to, or contributed by an individual member of a group— see share 1 *now let’s look at how this pertains to the NFL’s salary cap per the >>OLD Page 96 ( The foregoing Salary Cap amounts shall be adjusted as follows: (i) The actual dollar amount of the Salary Cap shall not be less than the actual dollar amount of any Salary Cap in effect during the preceding League Year; provided, however, that at no time shall the Projected Benefits, plus the amount of the Salary Cap multiplied by the number of Teams in the NFL, exceed 70% of the Projected Defined Gross Revenues. Section 5. Minimum Team Salary: With respect to each League Year for which a Salary Cap is in effect, there shall be a guaranteed Minimum Team Salary of 56% of Projected Defined Gross Revenues, less League-wide Projected Benefits, divided by the then current number of Teams in Page 97 the NFL. Each Team shall be required to have a Team Salary of at least the Minimum Team Salary at the end of each League Year. * Extension Agreement 1/8/02 [prior League Year percentages omitted] ( Nothing contained herein shall preclude a Team from having a Team Salary in excess of the Minimum Team Salary, provided it does not exceed the Salary Cap. © Any shortfall in the Minimum Team Salary at the end of a League Year shall be paid, on or before April 15 of the next League Year, by the Teams having such shortfall, directly to the players who were on such Teams' roster at any time during the season, pursuant to reasonable allocation instructions of the NFLPA. (d) If the NFL agrees, or a judgment or award is entered by the Special Master, that a Team has failed by the end of the then current League Year to make the payments required to satisfy a Team's obligations to pay the Minimum Team Salary required by this Agreement, then, in the event the Team fails promptly to comply with such agreement, judgment or award, the NFL shall make such payment on behalf of that Team (such funds to be paid as salary directly to the players on such Team at the direction of and pursuant to the reasonable allocation instructions of the NFLPA). Section 6. Computation of Team Salary: During any League year in which the Salary Cap is in effect, all of the following amounts shall be included every day in determining a Team’s Team Salary: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LT2_3 Posted March 16, 2009 Report Share Posted March 16, 2009 Sorry Dude. you were speaking in the present tense about "salary allottments" in your previous post. See I thought you were suddenly talking about the current CBA where the salary cap is designated on a percentage of ALL revenues and currently bears no relation to the money given to teams. Actually, now teams actually receive different amounts due to the revenue sharing between the top earning and least earning teams. So while your point was somewhat arguable for the last CBA, it's completely irrelevant in regards to the new CBA. It's like you're arguing a point from 3 years ago. Dude! Get in the now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucky Luciano Posted March 16, 2009 Report Share Posted March 16, 2009 Sorry Dude. you were speaking in the present tense about "salary allottments" in your previous post. See I thought you were suddenly talking about the current CBA where the salary cap is designated on a percentage of ALL revenues and currently bears no relation to the money given to teams. Actually, now teams actually receive different amounts due to the revenue sharing between the top earning and least earning teams. So while your point was somewhat arguable for the last CBA, it's completely irrelevant in regards to the new CBA. It's like you're arguing a point from 3 years ago. Dude! Get in the now! "somewhat arguable"?? how is it not a rock solid foundation doing exactly what i said it did based on facts and logical deduction? "Get in the now!"?? the entire discussion with 'nfo' is USING the past as the qualifier for the statements HE made ABOUT the past!! by the way, this was at the very top of my first post to you when you jumped into this conversation: "LT2_3 first: before i go into any details (right or wrong) lets discuss this 'example' using the previous nfl contract agreement as it pertains to nfo's and my discussion more-so than the one signed last year, at least at this point." http://www.talkbears.com/forums/index.php?...=4135&st=20 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.