Goodell To Attend Shareholders Meeting
Roger Goodell will be in attendance for the Packers' Annual Shareholder's meeting at Lambeau Field on July 29th.
By PackerAaron
The Packers and the NFL have announced that Roger Goodell will be in attendance for the Packers' Annual Shareholders Meeting, set for July 29th at Lambeau Field.
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell will be in attendance at the Green Bay Packers Annual Meeting of Shareholders, set for July 29, at 11 a.m. in Lambeau Field.
Goodell is scheduled to answer questions submitted by shareholders after the conclusion of the meeting. Shareholders have the opportunity to submit questions when voting their proxies online, and also will be able to submit questions in writing the day of the meeting.
Goodell's presence at the unveiling of the financials for the only NFL team that is required to open its books is not insignificant. I have been told by several sources that the Packers' numbers will not be pretty, even more so than last year when profits fell from $23 million to $4 million. You can bet the NFL will be shining a large light on the annual downward spiral of net profits.
PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO OUR CHEESEHEAD NATION WEEKLY NEWSLETTER HERE.
__________________________
Comments (31)
June 18, 2010 at 04:41 pm
if the numbers continued to decline, are we as a franchise in danger of extintion? rather radical thought, but just throwing it out there...
June 19, 2010 at 03:49 am
Shut. Your. Mouth.
June 18, 2010 at 05:23 pm
Well, at an extreme, yes. But plenty of other clubs will have disappeared first. Every day I am grateful that Bob Harlan had the foresight to see the storm coming early and guts to marshal his forces well before it arrived. Thanks to him, the Executive Committee, and the great people of Brown County, we'll fare better than most other clubs.
June 18, 2010 at 05:52 pm
call me ignorant...i know that unlike other teams, the town has a say in the team (i.e. im assuming finances and expedintures perhpas) but how exactly do the packers fund the team expesnes? sponsorships, advertising, the town itself?
June 19, 2010 at 03:51 am
By me blowing entire paychecks at the Proshop!
June 18, 2010 at 07:49 pm
Apart from the whole profit thing, could this be about the CBA? Green Bay is the only publicly owned team in the league, and Goodell could be trying to reassure the shareholders. Just a theory I'm throwing out there.
Go Pack Go!
June 18, 2010 at 11:15 pm
Not exactly sure why people would be surprised with the economy the way it is. The Packers were still able to cover all of their expenses and come out with a profit. I would think the team would try to cut down on expenses (such as player expenses) before they would be in any danger of folding up especially with the team being operated as a non-profit.
June 19, 2010 at 12:08 am
I don't think the Packers are in danger of extinction (to add to my last post). Profits are down because of the economy. When the economy gets better the Packers profit will go up. Plus the Packers do also have a Rainy Day fund (or whatever it is called).
June 19, 2010 at 09:35 am
REVENUE SHARING is the key to the smaller market teams.The "BIG" boys want to end it which makes it harder for some to compete with player salaries(capped or not).The Packers are ok either way as we are a nation wide team of fans and do well in the merchandise sales and the true "AMERICA"S TEAM"
Teams like BUF,JAC,SEA,CAR will get hurt and may be forced to re-locate or fold.
June 19, 2010 at 11:46 am
The Packers rely more on "National Revenue" than any other team. Any change in the revenue sharing formula will adversely impact the Packers. Jones and his boys are the Commish's puppet masters. Nothing good will happen from that union. This is Murphy's chance to present the small market position and get some assurances from Goodell. So, Stockholdrs ask him the tough questions. Don't let him off with the PR softballs.
Look at MM's comments in January. "We are building the team on a busines basis." I fear that the NFL will become MLB soon. The big markets will dominate and the small markets will be working from a disadvantage. GB will succeed only if they can bring in young talent and develop them quickly. They will lose many of their top performers to FA after 5 or 6 years. It will be an on-going process and difficult to manage. TT is a GM who is most suited for that environment (wish he was better with Olinemen).
GB will survive but, it won't be easy. That's why the Packers are special and always will be. I remember their darkest hours in the 50's when they were playing at Marquette Stadium in Milwaukee and it looked like the end was near. Then, Lombardi showed up and Revenue Sharing under Roselle was instituted. The CBA will tell us a lot about the future. GB would be the ideal team to take the lead for the small market teams.
June 19, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Wasn't that the rationale when FA was stabilished in the first time? That we wouldn't be able to bring in any FAs, that we would shiver and die...
June 19, 2010 at 01:50 pm
Dated 6-6-09,Despite the drop in local revenue,the GB overall Revenue rose from 241.3 mil to 247.9 mil whick keeps the Packers well into the upper half in league rankings and therfore CONTRIBUTING to the Revenue Sharing Program. Last years 241.3 mil ranked them 10th.
Teams such as Buf and Jac etc,don't contribute but recieve because of their markets where as we give into it.
PackerAaron
June 19, 2010 at 04:55 pm
Exactly - I made this point to George Attalah from the NFLPA. The Packers are the league's smallest market but actually paid INTO Supplemental Revenue Sharing. However, as part of the Final League Year, the NFL discontinued SRS for 2010.
June 19, 2010 at 10:54 pm
The Packers (so far) have resigned most of their young talent. Rodgers, Jennings, and Nick Collins have all been resigned in the last couple of years. Just thought I would point that out. I am not saying that the Packers won't lose players in free agency, but they will certainly resign some.
The only major player they have recently lost to free agency was Kampman and that was to a scheme dispute not money.
June 19, 2010 at 01:05 pm
Actually Revenue Sharing made that possible. That and Ron Wolf. GB is as prepared for the change as any team with TT at GM. He's already working on the log-term. As Packer fans we're lucky.
The word is the NFLPA is going for more generous FA rules and possibly arbitration. In the words of ole Charlie Finley of the KC Royals, "Give em FA, don't ever let them have arbitration. With arbitration the Packers would likely be paying $7 mil for Bush.
June 19, 2010 at 09:52 pm
Ron,arbitration is a GodSend depending on what side on the therum you are sitting.What's ECSTASY for one is the AGONY for another,hence the term "APPLES and ORANGES" or in more latter day terms(I think)I got mine and "fuck you".
June 19, 2010 at 03:22 pm
I just watched your latest vid, nice work. You guys are right about Bedard having the worst comments on his blog. It's ripe with vikings/favre fans, and or bears fans. So I have a question for you guys, what is this "Clawledge" thing Rodgers and CMIII are always tweeting about?
PackerAaron
June 19, 2010 at 04:56 pm
Nobody knows and Rodgers, who apparently made it up, won't say.
June 19, 2010 at 09:20 pm
It did what it was meant to do,people asking what the hell is a "CLAWLEDGE".Duh,I got it, an inside joke concerning college,but this is the NFL and time to talk to these fans in real language.Geez,no wonder we think there "kids".
June 20, 2010 at 10:34 am
http://twitter.com/AaronRodgers12/status/14322584941
This is what Rodgers says a "type" of clawledge is I guess:
@ClayMatthews52 clawledge is when clay rides around town in his lifted minivan with his shirt off n tribal tats showing, lookin 4 cougars
June 20, 2010 at 11:50 am
By Rodgers' own words, "is when clay rides around town in his lifted minivan with his shirt off n tribal tats showing, lookin 4 cougars"
June 21, 2010 at 11:29 am
When I see that, I assume that it is a definition by example rather than a straight definition. The way he uses it all the time makes it seem as if it can mean a lot of things.
June 19, 2010 at 05:42 pm
This worries me. I'm sure our revenue has dropped ever since we got rid of Brett Favre.
I'm really losing faith in the Packers lately.
PackerAaron
June 20, 2010 at 10:00 am
This has nothing to do with Brett Favre or how the Packers are run.
June 19, 2010 at 08:19 pm
"Last year, the team's operating profits fell from $34 million to $20 million." - ProFootballTalk.com
"UPDATE: For those of you who think that the drop in operating profits reflects investment losses, think again. Total profits, including investment losses, were only $4 million. That's why we used the term "operating profits."" - ProFootballTalk.com
June 19, 2010 at 09:27 pm
Hey Nagler looks like cheeseheadtv.com is really hitting the big time. Mike Florio mentioned you in his recent post http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/06/19/de-smith-may-attend-pack...
Looks like he's a reader of this site. I just hope the idiotic vikings fans don't jump on here and start thrashing it.
June 19, 2010 at 10:23 pm
To make it "BIG TIME" you must take on all comers.Regrettfully,this means listening too and acknowledging their (ahem) existence with a somewhat equal enthusium(acted of course)maybe Ben Affleck,a bland persona by nature.Better yet,you can offer commentary on the how to book "Stroking Yourself" by the DIVA and the the ONLY ELIGBLE WRITER of "WAIT TILL THE LAST SECOND BEFORE YOU LOSE IT" author.Not sure if this pertains to football analogies only but,whatever!!!
June 20, 2010 at 07:13 am
If revenue sharing ends, the Packers will simply raise ticket prices and get some turnover in the season ticket holders. Some of the longtime fans will get pissed off and leave, but there's 70,000 more people that are willing to pay the higher price. Right now, if they charge more, they contribute more to revenue sharing so it does not make sense to piss off fans and give the money away.
The TV deals and the NFL Network will likely be shared revenue in any outcome of the CBA.
And lets put this in perspective, single players can make more than a franchise can profit.
June 20, 2010 at 06:37 pm
"And lets put this in perspective, single players can make more than a franchise can profit."
Very refreshing.. someone has done the obvious math and finally said it out loud!
What other business model can you point to where a number of individual workers stand to make a larger yearly salary than the yearly profit margin of the business/corporation as a whole?
Yes, that's only the league elite players in the scenario above.. but Even when talking about the "average" NFL player whose career only lasts about 3 years, we're not talking about guys living in the poor house.
2010 Rookie min. salary: 320,000
1 year exp. min salary: 395,000
2 years exp min salary: 470,000
Total for three active years:
$1.185 Million
Or, about what the average US citizen earns in a lifetime of work.
Crazy.
June 20, 2010 at 05:57 pm
Hey I might just have to fly out for that one!
June 22, 2010 at 10:03 pm
Yes! I get to give Rodger-boy a piece of my mind!