Bedard Is Spot On
By Aaron Nagler on Jun 26, 2009 with 6 Comments
When it comes to this dreck on offer from Ross Tucker over at CNNSI, where Tucker basically surmises that the Packers, as the only team to open it’s books due to it’s standing as the only publicly owned team, should have whittled away their profit margin by going on a spending bonanza. Why would they do this? To help the perception of the clubs as being strapped-for-cash institutions rather than the multi-million dollar money-prininting-machines we know they are.
I’ll let Bedard’s response say it all:
So the Packers should have chucked their carefully crafted strategic plan and spent foolishly in just this offseason thereby ruining the chances of signing any of those and their many other free-agents-to-be, just so the other 31 teams — many of which are greedy and/or poorly run — can keep more of their money down the road under a new CBA?
And just because the Packers are the lone publicly-owned team, while other teams like the Pittsburgh Steelers and Tampa Bay Buccaneers are OKÂ doing the same thing because they’re privately owned?
That’s what you’re telling me?
Yeah, that makes sense. I mean, maybe in theory there is something to what Tucker is saying. But not in reality. No way.
Filed Under: Greg Bedard • NFL • National Media
The irony is that Tucker’s premise was completely wrong. He assumed that the Packers somehow failed to utilize their entire salary cap. While I understand that cap accounting and cash accounting are two completely different fields, the Packers used their entire cap last season. To say that they had to sign Rodgers and Jennings to mega contracts “in order to reach the mandated salary floor” is pure garbage. This guy just lost a ton of credibility.
Jayme, he’s actually an excellent read when he’s talking about issues on the field. This article is really out of character for him.
That article from Tucker was one of the worst things I’ve read in a long time. He should issue an apology.
A few qwotes from NumbNuts source article:
“It’s a real concern that our player costs continue to grow at a rate much higher than our revenue’s growing,” Packers president and chief executive Mark Murphy said. “It’s not sustainable, and it’s the reason we opted out of the collective bargaining agreement.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Operating Profit doesn’t equal Net Profit. Special Items like a mandatory set aside for Lambeau Field Contstruction, Federal Taxes (not sxempt as a Non-Profit, only State), and Other Significant Expendatures not related to operations.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“Expenses were up 4 percent to $227.8 million. That includes $138.7 million in player costs, an increase of almost 11 percent from the previous year.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Total cost up only 4% – Player costs up 11%. I guess that means they cut expenses in areas other than players. Moron!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As fans we may argue if the 11% increase was spent wisely, but that increase blows his stupid premise all to hell.
In addition player salaries for other teams are often funded above the limits pf team revenue by the “Sugar Daddy” owners. The Packers have to pay out of football revenue only. Hence the need to manage the Cash Outflow judiciously.
I hate Sports Reporters! Idiots one and all.
We get it, it was a stupid article. So dont read the guy anymore! While I agree he should have maybe put in some more research into it….who cares and move on.
Net Profit was $4 million down from $27 million in 2007. Much of the loss was in Investments. A decline in Reatained Earnings of this magnitude will impede the signing of FA’s and pre-signing veterans. The Packers rely on Retained Earnings as a souce of Cash for special items.