NFL Teams Discussion | Other Teams News And Transactions

[captaind]

We we not going to trade for him and pay him this,....which he turned down lol
IDK , i think him turning that down is stupid,selfish and arrogant.

If it's about more than the money, maybe it's about winning. Maybe there is no dollar amount he will accept to get out of that shitty organization.

If it's that, I totally understand.

[powderblueboy]

What I'm saying is that owning an NFL franchise is mostly a vanity asset, and not a significant cash flow generator. While you may see ridiculous sums of $400 million plus being paid in revenue sharing deals to clubs, the reality is the vast majority (if not all, in some cases) of that revenue is used to cover operating costs. Unless your club is Jerry Jones' Dallas Cowboys, which I estimate clears about $250-$350 million in net income, some NFL clubs aren't even close to hitting the 9 figure mark, after paying taxes and servicing debt interest, on an annual basis. I'd estimate the majority of clubs generate $50-$80 million in net income annually. If you consider today's player contracts, those amounts are barely able to cover the clubs' franchise QB's annual guarantees. The cash flow isn't simply there which is why most clubs diversify their investments from the income generated from football operations. The majority take on new debt to finance stadium costs, whether that's maintenance, renovations, new construction, etc. and player acquisition costs, and most carry an LTV ratio of 10-15% (or more as in the case of the Chargers) of the value of the franchise. That ratio puts most teams at $500-$700 million in debt, which coincidentally, are at or near the cap the NFL has afforded clubs in terms of debt acquisition, when translated to dollar values -- given today's interest rates, that is not insignificant.

Did the owners let you audit their organizations books jaguarman

Not that I put much care or interest into the subject, but under the general belief that NFL owners are doing quite well, the most transparent organization involving profits and financing would be that of Green Bay,
and they reported $85 million in profits last year. They took out 600 million in renovation early in the century .... 600 million being standard renovation costs across the league, noting those in the past decade in Baltimore, and various other NFL cities. Nfl owners are not bashful about effectively pushing to pass off a large chunk of these costs on to taxpayers in one way or another: direct taxes, low interest loans, lost revenues from other applications of real estate or money .....

So, if you take GreenBays profits as typical, and consider the initial investment of buying the team (Spanos paid 74 million in 1984 dollars for practically 100% control)... its a handsome profit by percentage, not even taking into account the sky rocketing value of NFl teams, and how one could leverage that if they so desired. I imagine it more then meets the fantastic profits expected by the elites these days in their investment portfolios. And then their are the profits from real estate provisions that go hand in hand with stadiums these days. Silly 1960s, when the city of San Diego financed the most basic of stadiums, cheaply by todays standards, with no other thought.

With owners like Kroenke, and his behemoth stadium: you have to consider not just team revenues and subtractions in debt contracted in the construction, but real estate and his interests in that domain surrounding the stadium ... where i'm sure he did quite well. The costs for stadium construction will come out of the team profits and probably indirectly from city coffers in someway or another, and be funneled into some other corporate entity of Kroenkes.

The net result is mixed for Inglewood, more economic activity that requires untrained workers, after the stadium construction, which ends up leaving other parts of LA, making that part more depressed,
and along with the cheap jobs for Inglewood, rising housing and rent costs, diminishing as you radiate away from the stadium

And that's what passes for a jobs programs in our country today.
Money that the federal government once had through taxing the Kroenkes and their organizations sufficiently , which formerly went into subsidizing things like the aerospace industry in LA years ago,
now remains in the coffers of Stan Kroenke, which he wastes on 5 billion dollar stadiums, and other items of conspicuous consumption.


People like Kroenke principally 'diversify' their holdings by buying real estate, or already existing assets, and their only real function is to drive up the value of either, and make a profit.
And this passes for efficiency here.

What a waste!

But don't worry for the owners Jaguarman ..... they are doing fine. However, never as fine as they believe they deserve.

[jaguarmanftype]

I think you missed the hypothetical nature of the proposal, so let me restate it:

Would you rather be a headcoach on a team that consistently attempts to max out the cap when it is to their advantage,
as opposed to being on one where the owner sets an imaginary salary limit each year of 90% of the cap, ..... and spends what they save on player's salaries towards the scouting department or on the assistant coaching staff.


Since there are imposed limits, in truth, we are talking about maybe 15 - 20 million max each year - so the argument is somewhat moot.
The criteria of owners that want to win championships basically applying to their willingness to commit additional expenditures on team executives, coaching staffs, facilities, ...... and get out of their way.

Most here want both .... and were ill pleased with the Spanos basically spending up to the cap, and then nickel and diming with every green head coach imaginable, and the yes man GM and shitty facilities, and amateurish interference that came along with it.

So, the argument is speculative, I suppose, and probably should be modified:
if you could, would you rather spend no more than 80% of cap money on salaries, and the savings (maybe 35 - 40 million) on the coaching staff/GM/scouts/facilities.

Hortiz, basically makes what Telesco makes .... so to be fair, would you rather have Jim Harbaugh and his staff, under Tom Telesco, with the 80% cap, or Brandon Staley's 100 % cap^
Not an easy choice ... and under which scenario is John Spanos going to make important decisions.

Since Jaguarman seems generally inclined to want to amply provision owners, executives and administrators in his model organization, at the expense of workers, I imagine the result is moot in his mind:
it more having to do with the aesthetic beauty of the principle involved.

It's an interesting discussion, to be sure. Assuming the above scenario of spending only 80% of cap space, and translating those savings to improved coaching, scouting, executive and facility improvements, would I rather have a Jim Harbaugh as my HC with more scouts, better yet more expensive coaching staff, better facilities, etc. or do would I rather add another Joey Bosa, Khalil Mack, perhaps a Hendrickson or a Tyreek Hill but yet keep Staley or Lynn as my HCs and Telesco as my GM? If we'd go back to 2020, or 2023, I know what the answer would be for the majority of this forum, but I'm sure some of the added star power will make some overlook the coaching and front office aspects.

[Javia]

We we not going to trade for him and pay him this,....which he turned down lol
IDK , i think him turning that down is stupid,selfish and arrogant.

"Captain, we have detected a singularity. Shall we approach?"

[Fouts2herbert]

We we not going to trade for him and pay him this,....which he turned down lol
IDK , i think him turning that down is stupid,selfish and arrogant.

Sheesh, you got OUR fans on OUR team forum talking about your stupid ass reality TV made up drama, bravo Jerry, you sly motherfucker!

[jamrock]

We we not going to trade for him and pay him this,....which he turned down lol
IDK , i think him turning that down is stupid,selfish and arrogant.

Jerry is old school and now got in a war with Parsons agent who he accused of looking out for himself rather than Micah.

[powderblueboy]

I am not even sure what your point is as the Chiefs are not spending to the cap and have $17.3 million in cap space right now. The Chargers are currently 13th in cap space with $27 million free. The SB champion Eagles have $29 million fee. The Lions have $48 million. The Packers have $31.5 million. There are only 3 teams in the entire league with less than $13.6 million free.

I think you missed the hypothetical nature of the proposal, so let me restate it:

Would you rather be a headcoach on a team that consistently attempts to max out the cap when it is to their advantage,
as opposed to being on one where the owner sets an imaginary salary limit each year of 90% of the cap, ..... and spends what they save on player's salaries towards the scouting department or on the assistant coaching staff.


Since there are imposed limits, in truth, we are talking about maybe 15 - 20 million max each year - so the argument is somewhat moot.
The criteria of owners that want to win championships basically applying to their willingness to commit additional expenditures on team executives, coaching staffs, facilities, ...... and get out of their way.

Most here want both .... and were ill pleased with the Spanos basically spending up to the cap, and then nickel and diming with every green head coach imaginable, and the yes man GM and shitty facilities, and amateurish interference that came along with it.

So, the argument is speculative, I suppose, and probably should be modified:
if you could, would you rather spend no more than 80% of cap money on salaries, and the savings (maybe 35 - 40 million) on the coaching staff/GM/scouts/facilities.

Hortiz, basically makes what Telesco makes .... so to be fair, would you rather have Jim Harbaugh and his staff, under Tom Telesco, with the 80% cap, or Brandon Staley's 100 % cap^
Not an easy choice ... and under which scenario is John Spanos going to make important decisions.

Since Jaguarman seems generally inclined to want to amply provision owners, executives and administrators in his model organization, at the expense of workers, I imagine the result is moot in his mind:
it more having to do with the aesthetic beauty of the principle involved.

[Boltjolt]

We are not going to trade for him and pay him this,....which he turned down lol
IDK , i think him turning that down is stupid,selfish and arrogant.