The trio of Gute, MLF and Russ Ball all get contract extensions...

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
9,143
Reaction score
2,164
The length of the extensions were not addressed by Mark Murphy as he only said he is "confident" they would both be with the club for years to come.

Appears Pelissero was the one that got to break the news....but sounds like this was all agreed to months ago.

 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
4,111
Reaction score
655
Absolutely the right moves. I was glad to read that this was done.
It is best to get these things done without a lot of back and forth. I'm sure the Packers were generous in their offers and why not? These three guys are doing very well.
 

El Guapo

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
5,745
Reaction score
1,209
Location
Land 'O Lakes
I've never understood why the Packers aren't near the top of coaching and front office payroll. During the team's early days, money was a problem. It was a problem in the 1980s as well. However, the Packers organization routinely nets $30M-$70M annually. They have roughly half a Billion dollars of cash & investments. Matt LeFleur is still not even in the top ten of coaches salaries. It took an embarrassing playoff loss due to special teams to get the Packers to spend a little more on a good ST coach. We don't have Jerry Jones keeping expenses down so that he can afford to pay for all of his illegitimate children. We should be attracting the best coaches with top notch salaries and benefits.

Packers 2020 Annual Report. Finances start on page 20:

A 2022 Packers.com article that shows they had Net Income of $62M in 2021: https://www.packers.com/news/financially-packers-have-put-pandemic-behind-them-2022
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
4,111
Reaction score
655
I've never understood why the Packers aren't near the top of coaching and front office payroll. During the team's early days, money was a problem. It was a problem in the 1980s as well. However, the Packers organization routinely nets $30M-$70M annually. They have roughly half a Billion dollars of cash & investments. Matt LeFleur is still not even in the top ten of coaches salaries. It took an embarrassing playoff loss due to special teams to get the Packers to spend a little more on a good ST coach. We don't have Jerry Jones keeping expenses down so that he can afford to pay for all of his illegitimate children. We should be attracting the best coaches with top notch salaries and benefits.

Packers 2020 Annual Report. Finances start on page 20:

A 2022 Packers.com article that shows they had Net Income of $62M in 2021: https://www.packers.com/news/financially-packers-have-put-pandemic-behind-them-2022
I agree money is not an issue. But living in Green Bay may be an issue for some guys. I can understand that. It doesn't change the fact that the Packers seem cheap when it comes to coaches' salaries.
 

GreenNGold_81

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 15, 2015
Messages
1,484
Reaction score
146
I agree money is not an issue. But living in Green Bay may be an issue for some guys. I can understand that. It doesn't change the fact that the Packers seem cheap when it comes to coaches' salaries.
Agree, weird they aren't tops for the league. GB should be considered a franchise that tries to lure the best coaches, and I do think our coaching staff this year appears to be quite strong. But GB should be paying them accordingly.
 

lambeaulambo

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 30, 2010
Messages
2,028
Reaction score
422
Location
Rest Home
I agree money is not an issue. But living in Green Bay may be an issue for some guys. I can understand that. It doesn't change the fact that the Packers seem cheap when it comes to coaches' salaries.
Not this again...what year is it? 1981? VERY desirable NFL spot...legendary. I can understand why coaches wouldnt want to live in ________. Nonsense.
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
27,577
Reaction score
2,341
I've never understood why the Packers aren't near the top of coaching and front office payroll. During the team's early days, money was a problem. It was a problem in the 1980s as well. However, the Packers organization routinely nets $30M-$70M annually. They have roughly half a Billion dollars of cash & investments. Matt LeFleur is still not even in the top ten of coaches salaries. It took an embarrassing playoff loss due to special teams to get the Packers to spend a little more on a good ST coach. We don't have Jerry Jones keeping expenses down so that he can afford to pay for all of his illegitimate children. We should be attracting the best coaches with top notch salaries and benefits.

Packers 2020 Annual Report. Finances start on page 20:

A 2022 Packers.com article that shows they had Net Income of $62M in 2021: https://www.packers.com/news/financially-packers-have-put-pandemic-behind-them-2022

Don't fool yourself, while the Packers are currently in a very sound fiscal situation they don't have anywhere close to the money other teams have.

In addition it shouldn't be surprising that the Packers didn't make MLF one of the highest paid head coaches in the league when they hired him back in 2019. He didn't have any experience at the job at this point. On top of it, there are several reports out there that they made Bisaccia the highest paid special teams coordinator in the league this year.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
4,111
Reaction score
655
Not this again...what year is it? 1981? VERY desirable NFL spot...legendary. I can understand why coaches wouldnt want to live in ________. Nonsense.
I get the "legendary" part, and actually think that was a big part in getting Ron Wolf to turn this "legendary" franchise around. It worked and a number of people/players followed him.

It's still fair to assume someone who has lived and coached in a big city would not want to spend more than half (or all) of their time in Green Bay, WI. It's a long way from "nonsense" - unless you were raised in Wisconsin and are a die-hard homer for the Pack. I meet those criteria but would not want to live in Green Bay. It's a sample of one and all I'm saying is that there are some (not all) coaching candidates who would turn down an offer because it's Green Bay (the location, not the team).

And at the same time I'm sure there are other candidates who would love to be part of the organization. Since Bob Harlan took over, it's quite impressive how he and others who followed him returned the word "glory" to the Packers. I lived through the glory years of the 60s and the "gory" years of the 70s and 80s. I have some appreciation for the group of people who came to Green Bay in the 90s and brought back the excellence we were used to in the 60s.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
4,111
Reaction score
655
Don't fool yourself, while the Packers are currently in a very sound fiscal situation they don't have anywhere close to the money other teams have.

In addition it shouldn't be surprising that the Packers didn't make MLF one of the highest paid head coaches in the league when they hired him back in 2019. He didn't have any experience at the job at this point. On top of it, there are several reports out there that they made Bisaccia the highest paid special teams coordinator in the league this year.
The Bisaccia part is true. I think he's getting $2 mil/year and that does make him the highest paid STs coach.

I don't think money has been an issue in attracting and retaining good coaches in Green Bay. I have no doubt there are some candidates who just don't want to live in Green Bay. And I know that's a hot button for die-hard Packer fans born and raised in Wisconsin. I've been a die-hard Packer fan all my life and I was raised in Milwaukee and spent a good part of my life in the Bay Area of CA. I like big cities and would never live in a town as small as Green Bay. The weather plays a part too. I doubt that I'm alone as far as that sentiment. And no I'm not a football coach with big money offers. I'm sure that this would change some people's mind, especially head coaches and coordinators who can earn millions.
 

El Guapo

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
5,745
Reaction score
1,209
Location
Land 'O Lakes
Don't fool yourself, while the Packers are currently in a very sound fiscal situation they don't have anywhere close to the money other teams have.

In addition it shouldn't be surprising that the Packers didn't make MLF one of the highest paid head coaches in the league when they hired him back in 2019. He didn't have any experience at the job at this point. On top of it, there are several reports out there that they made Bisaccia the highest paid special teams coordinator in the league this year.
I don't understand your first comment. It has NOTHING to do with the discussion. The Packers have enough money to pay premium dollars for coaches that deserve it. That was the discussion.

Nobody argued that LaFleur should have been a top-paid coach when he came here. I honestly think that you just read posts and try to think of arguments to make because you are bored. Since you brought it up, I agree that LaFleur was paid appropriately as a young, rookie head coach. Now that he has guided them to three successful seasons I think that even his pay bump was appropriate. He shouldn't be making Super Bowl winning coach money, but he should be close based on his level of success thus far. I think that the only non-SB-winning coaches paid more than LaFleur are Kingsbury, Rivera, and Rhule.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
8,874
Reaction score
2,286
I haven’t seen all the fiscal information, but I’m pleased that we locked these guys down. I think it’s helpful to have some solidarity at the executive level.
I do not envy the teams that keep switching Coaching or GM every other season.

PS. I’ll Move to GB as an advisor
I’m cheap. My “make me move”
price is only $2.5M yearly with an 18 month severance package. I’m taking one for the team it’s the kinda guy I am. (I expect not to last) :eek:
 

rmontro

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Messages
3,580
Reaction score
485
Don't fool yourself, while the Packers are currently in a very sound fiscal situation they don't have anywhere close to the money other teams have.
I don't deny what you're saying, but why don't they have the money other teams do? They're one of the most popular teams in the league, so surely their merch must sell well. And they sell out routinely. So what is the source of the money gap?
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
8,874
Reaction score
2,286
I don't deny what you're saying, but why don't they have the money other teams do? They're one of the most popular teams in the league, so surely their merch must sell well. And they sell out routinely. So what is the source of the money gap?
Idk. Speculating though that 6 of the top 11 are the most populated Metro areas. Dallas #1 NY Giants #3,
NY Jets #8, Los Angeles #4,
Chicago #7 Houston #11

Also at the top #2 Patriots for obvious reasons.

D.C. #5 San Fran #6, Philly #9, Denver #10 aren’t exactly small metro areas.

I’m guessing pure population has a big part of that. Considering GB is #13 though that’s still pretty stellar for the smallest population center.
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
27,577
Reaction score
2,341
I don't understand your first comment. It has NOTHING to do with the discussion. The Packers have enough money to pay premium dollars for coaches that deserve it. That was the discussion.

Of course it has everything to do with the discussion. The Packers being the team in the smallest market and the only one without a wealthy owner definitely don't want to be the one driving up the prices for coaches and executives.

Nobody argued that LaFleur should have been a top-paid coach when he came here.

You posted that you don't understand MLF not being in the top 10 of coaches salaries. I'm quite sure most of the lists out there don't contain any information about his newly signed extension. In addition you need to be aware that there's no reliable information about it as most of the numbers are estimated.

I honestly think that you just read posts and try to think of arguments to make because you are bored.

In my opinion it's the point of a forum to discuss different point of views. It would be awfully boring if everybody agreed with everything being posted.

Since you brought it up, I agree that LaFleur was paid appropriately as a young, rookie head coach. Now that he has guided them to three successful seasons I think that even his pay bump was appropriate. He shouldn't be making Super Bowl winning coach money, but he should be close based on his level of success thus far. I think that the only non-SB-winning coaches paid more than LaFleur are Kingsbury, Rivera, and Rhule.

Well, so what's the point about complaining the Packers lowballing coaches? MLF seems happy about the contract being offered and for all I care that's the only thing that matters.

I don't deny what you're saying, but why don't they have the money other teams do? They're one of the most popular teams in the league, so surely their merch must sell well. And they sell out routinely. So what is the source of the money gap?

That's pretty easy to answer. The Packers don't have an owner who is filhty rich.

Idk. Speculating though that 6 of the top 11 are the most populated Metro areas. Dallas #1 NY Giants #3,
NY Jets #8, Los Angeles #4,
Chicago #7 Houston #11

Also at the top #2 Patriots for obvious reasons.

D.C. #5 San Fran #6, Philly #9, Denver #10 aren’t exactly small metro areas.

I’m guessing pure population has a big part of that. Considering GB is #13 though that’s still pretty stellar for the smallest population center.

While the Packers are valued slightly above the league average they don't have an owner who could bail them out if they made operational losses.

That's what I meant by mentioning that they don't have as much money as other teams.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
4,111
Reaction score
655
Of course it has everything to do with the discussion. The Packers being the team in the smallest market and the only one without a wealthy owner definitely don't want to be the one driving up the prices for coaches and executives.



You posted that you don't understand MLF not being in the top 10 of coaches salaries. I'm quite sure most of the lists out there don't contain any information about his newly signed extension. In addition you need to be aware that there's no reliable information about it as most of the numbers are estimated.



In my opinion it's the point of a forum to discuss different point of views. It would be awfully boring if everybody agreed with everything being posted.



Well, so what's the point about complaining the Packers lowballing coaches? MLF seems happy about the contract being offered and for all I care that's the only thing that matters.



That's pretty easy to answer. The Packers don't have an owner who is filhty rich.



While the Packers are valued slightly above the league average they don't have an owner who could bail them out if they made operational losses.

That's what I meant by mentioning that they don't have as much money as other teams.
FWIW ,- yeah the point of the forum is to throw around opinions that are different. And at least for me, I learn things here I either didn't know, or forgot......... And for the most part, this forum is pretty civil.

And your answer on why the Packers aren't as rich as other teams, in spite of their popularity, is correct I think. Other owners have other properties besides their football teams. Why? Because they're wealthy. Green Bay is community owned and completely different in that regard to any other franchise.
 

sschind

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
4,795
Reaction score
1,100
The Bisaccia part is true. I think he's getting $2 mil/year and that does make him the highest paid STs coach.

I don't think money has been an issue in attracting and retaining good coaches in Green Bay. I have no doubt there are some candidates who just don't want to live in Green Bay. And I know that's a hot button for die-hard Packer fans born and raised in Wisconsin. I've been a die-hard Packer fan all my life and I was raised in Milwaukee and spent a good part of my life in the Bay Area of CA. I like big cities and would never live in a town as small as Green Bay. The weather plays a part too. I doubt that I'm alone as far as that sentiment. And no I'm not a football coach with big money offers. I'm sure that this would change some people's mind, especially head coaches and coordinators who can earn millions.
To each their own but as far as I am concerned I don't know if I'd want to live in a city as BIG as Green Bay. That's sort of sarcastic but I like small towns. My town was 15/16 thousand but we lived further out, not really in the country but definitely not in town.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
4,111
Reaction score
655
Cue up some John Cougar. I'm also a fan of the small town.
There is something special about small towns and I admit I like to visit them. In the spring a group of friends and I would make a fishing pilgrimage to some small lake and stay in some small town. And that John Cougar song is great. Well, most of his records are great, whether he was John Cougar or John Mellencamp. Same guy.

Growing up in Milwaukee in the 60s was a little like growing up in a small town. Certainly Milwaukee has made strides in the last 50 years, but it still has a small town feel, especially if you live out in the suburbs. It will never be confused with NYC or Chicago though!
 

sschind

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
4,795
Reaction score
1,100
There is something special about small towns and I admit I like to visit them. In the spring a group of friends and I would make a fishing pilgrimage to some small lake and stay in some small town. And that John Cougar song is great. Well, most of his records are great, whether he was John Cougar or John Mellencamp. Same guy.

Growing up in Milwaukee in the 60s was a little like growing up in a small town. Certainly Milwaukee has made strides in the last 50 years, but it still has a small town feel, especially if you live out in the suburbs. It will never be confused with NYC or Chicago though!
I can see Milwaukee in the 60 having the feel. Now though I live in Twin Lakes, close to the FIB, and I avoid it as much as possible.
 

Jayzee1981

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 7, 2019
Messages
63
Reaction score
10
Not this again...what year is it? 1981? VERY desirable NFL spot...legendary. I can understand why coaches wouldnt want to live in ________. Nonsense.
Exactly. I’m a diehard Packers fan born and raised that lives in Chicago. Being a fireman I have to live in this **** hole because of this stupid mandatory live in law. Every chance I get, whether it be furloughs, make it yourself vacations or what have you, the wife and I frequent Wisconsin such as Brookfield, Mishicot, Two Rivers etc.. and don’t ever want to come back to this dump. I can’t retire soon enough. Would love to live in Wisconsin over many places in this country.
 

rmontro

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Messages
3,580
Reaction score
485
That's pretty easy to answer. The Packers don't have an owner who is filhty rich.
You're saying the owners add their own money into the business to give it more profits?
I was thinking perhaps it had something to do with the larger cities being able to pay more for luxury boxes, since those are homes to bigger corporations.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
8,874
Reaction score
2,286
Technically the Packers have 500,000 owners. They had a simple stock sale that garnered $64M, so that’s a chunk
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
4,111
Reaction score
655
You're saying the owners add their own money into the business to give it more profits?
I was thinking perhaps it had something to do with the larger cities being able to pay more for luxury boxes, since those are homes to bigger corporations.
Actually that's a pretty good point. Sponsorship of the stadium alone brings in a huge amount of cash. Then corporations buy luxury boxes and yeah, there are a lot more big companies in NYC and LA than GB.

But it really doesn't matter how profitable a firm is. Each team can only spend the cap on salaries. There is no luxury tax. IMO it's what makes football so great. (It doesn't explain why Detroit and Minnesota are still looking for their first SB win, and why Chicago has one when GB has four.)
 

Members online

No members online now.
Top