Boy am I sink of of Florio's oft-parotted "how can you pay Haynesworth but lay administrative personnel off" argument. I can't say this anymore clearly: football is a product and football players are most-critical inputs.
---
It's like bitching that Frito Lay is laying off workers but "still has enough money to buy potatos." No shit. You need potatoes to make to make potato chips and you need players to field a football team. Are you suggesting that Frito Lay shouldn't lay off any workers until it is too damn broke to buy potatos?
---
Good economy or bad economy, its not an employer's job to give folks jobs in perpetuity if it makes sense for the employer to do without. There is a reason why employers pay unemployment insurance for their workers.

That is a HUGE pie they are trying to split and they will figure it out and yes it will come down to the wire. Right now and for the past year it is all about getting yourself into the strongest possible bargaining position.----

Great post and analogy DDD. I get so tired of people bitching about what is 'fair' in regard to other’s business decisions. It seems the more successful it is the more people complain about it. The goal is to turn a profit and help the football operation become more successful. It's not to continue to employ 10 people in the pro-shop who have nothing to do because the economy has caused the orders to stop coming. And, I am pretty sure that DDD gives a shit about people regardless of him not wanting to micro-mange someone elses business model.

Hey Aaron, Do you think this was a topic at the Packer's budget meeting?: "How about we stop buying bud light for every meeting" lol

OK, search for the truth but it just seems to me that your mind is made up and you are simply looking for things to boost your underlying assumption that big business (and DDD) are evil greedy bastards and ignoring things that actually may justify the layoffs. ------And when you say things like the NFL makes so much money they should pay be able to “pay the I.T. guy” it sure sounds like you want to meddle with business decisions.

" I actually care about people."

What lengths have you gone to help those people since you " care " so much? Not trying to be a jerk here, but I'm calling BS on that one.

Aaron - well I'm glad you are now OK with firing the I.T. guy as long as you get a full explanation for it. You say the "economy" excuse is laughable and doesn't make any sense but you seem very unwilling to dig into any possible explanation as to why the economy may actually cause layoffs at a NFL team. You instead skip right to your underlying assumptions about big business. I am guessing that the average NFL team has a very diverse set of profit streams and business units and the economy may affect some of those units differently then others. If one unit is no longer making money or has started bleeding money then it would make sense to scale down or scuttle that unit regardless of the overall profitability of the organization or regardless of how much you paid Albert Hanesworth. Is that not a plausible explanation for some of the layoffs? I’m not saying that is the truth but it seems a fairly plausible explanation that you won’t even consider because it doesn’t fit your worldview that big business makes decisions because of greed and because they (and DDD) do not care about people.

Aaron - I don't know much either but I know most poeple trust their underlying assumptions more then their eyes.

I agree that it's a shrewd move on the part of the NFLPA because in today's day and age, good P.R. matters more than reality. It might also be the case that the only reason some owners are firing people is so they can say how tough it is on the teams in these troubled economic times.

Aaron, it's about return on investment. At my job, we have to justify our position within the company by pointing out that if our position was cut, the company would lose x amount of dollars. This is done through a report generated every month dealing with gains from the modeling that we do. I'm sure that they do something similar in the NFL.
---
If it was determined that the incremental benefit of having one extra cheerleader was next to nothing, and her salary could be spent in other places that bring in a higher rate of return, of course the company is going get rid of her. Obviously companies don't like to do this often because of the negative effects on employee morale, but when the budget is tight, it is bound to happen. Corporations are not moral entities, they are profit earning entities.
---
As for paying Haynesworth as much as they did, I can assure you that the only reason that they did it is because the expected gain from having him is greater than the salary that they paid him. Just by paying him such a large amount, they generated a huge amount of publicity that would likely have cost the marketing department hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars. Also, there is the sale of jerseys that come directly from having Haynesworth. The biggest benefit, however, would be that he is likely to be expected to help them win games. Evidence exists that suggest that people buy more beer, food, and souvenirs when the team wins an individual game, and if the team wins many games, the bandwagon fans arrive that help sell more apparel and tickets.
---
Whether or not these expectations are realistic, especially in a division as competitive as the NFC East, is another story.

Here's the thing, those of you who are criticizing Aaron are making purely theoretical arguments based on business and economic models. But let's be honest here, firing these people likely isn't pushing NFL teams out of the red and into the black. Unless they open up their books and show otherwise, I find it very hard to believe that NFL teams were losing money and had to fire administrative personnel. While I do believe a company's main goal should be to "turn a profit" there is a point where the company can become too greedy. Essentially, how much profit is enough profit?

-----

I forget the story/quote now, but in my Corporations class last year my professor relayed an anecdote about how Henry Ford refused to raise the prices on his cars, even though the market would probably bear it, because he believed all Americans should be able to comfortably afford a car. Now, this was probably a shrewd business maneuver anyway since he was also probably trying to get a stranglehold on the car market, but from the little I have read it seems there is a dramatic difference in mentality between businessman and companies during Ford's time and today.

-----

Now, I understand times have changed and it would be foolish to operate businesses the same way that Ford and his colleagues did. However, I do think it is undeniable that we have witnessed quite a few scandals done in the name of "turning a profit" or "maximizing shareholder value."

We are not talking about "firing the IT guy." We are talking about firing 2 out of the 30 IT guys. Do Evil Billionaires actually need 30 IT guys or can they get by with only 28? Who is in the best position to answer this question?
---
Bloggers of course.
---
But you guys shouldn't worry, if the Evil Billionaires fired the IT guys even though they really do need 30 instead of 28, they will certainly pay for it down the line. So don't sweat it: they will get their comeupance far greater than anything a silly blogger can deliver.
---
Now as to why the Packers haven't fired anyone: has it ever occurred to you that maybe the Packers only had 28 rather than 30 IT guys to begin with?
---
Best regards,
---
General Zod

Keith - I think we are giving possible explanations for the layoffs because Aaron doesn't seem to even consider them in his post(s) on the subject. I just think there are some alternative explanations here that someone would consider if they were just seeking the truth.

Dave, I get where you're coming from and actually agree with you. I just feel like both sides of the argument are too black and white.

-----

I agree with you and DDD that a business should "trim the fat" if it means turning a profit. However, even if a company only needs 28 IT guys rather than 30, should they necessarily fire 2 IT guys when they are already making a nice profit just to make more money?

Aaron - I think myself and a few readers are just pointing out other possible explanations for the layoffs other then what you have presented in the last 2-3 paragraghs of your post. I don't think that means I want to stop you from giving voice to your suspicions on your blog. I went a step further and speculated why you don't look into the other possible explanations and I think maybe that was a bit unfair.

All busineses cut out the fat during economic downturns. That's the standard reaction by big business.
_____
At the same time, which NFL team will decide to play the 2009 season with a 50 man roster instead of a 53 man roster to also trim the fat? You know they could do it & it would have zero effect on their W-L record. However, it won't happen.

Actually, the company I work for has been adding people during the current recession. Perhaps not as many as we otherwise might have, but we're still larger than we were a year ago.

I dunno whether the finances of these entitities is such that justifies letting go 2 of the 30 IT guys. I do know that many of these entities are beneficiaries of significant public subsidies in the form of the stadiums they play in and the terms under which they get to use those stadiums. I think transparency is the appropriate approach, and the league's reluctance in this area certainly raises suspicions.