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

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
27,888
Reaction score
2,492
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.

My point was that a wealthy owner could easily bail out a team making an operational loss while the Packers would run into trouble covering up for it over an extended period.

In addition those teams could pay significantly more money for coaches and executives, therefore you definitely don't want the Packers to be the team running up those salaries.

Technically the Packers have 500,000 owners. They had a simple stock sale that garnered $64M, so that’s a chunk

Don't get me wrong, but $64M is peanuts for most NFL owners. For example, the Broncos were just bought for $4.65B!!!

In addition the Packers can only use the money made in a stock sale on stadium improvements.

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.

While teams can only spend up to the cap on players teams with a wealthy owner are able to afford paying coaches and executives significantly more money.

They can also spend huge bucks on the team's infrastructure as well.
 

PikeBadger

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
4,774
Reaction score
726
Dollars are relative. Where else in the NFL can a coach get a nice 3000sq ft home for $400,000 in a quiet and safe neighborhood that is less than a 15 minute drive to work. Throw in cheaper food, utilities and any other goods you want to purchase.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
9,399
Reaction score
2,458
Dollars are relative. Where else in the NFL can a coach get a nice 3000sq ft home for $400,000 in a quiet and safe neighborhood that is less than a 15 minute drive to work. Throw in cheaper food, utilities and any other goods you want to purchase.
That’s true. $5M in Green Bay, WI and $5M in Los Angeles, CA are entirely different things.
 

areacodes

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
While teams can only spend up to the cap on players teams with a wealthy owner are able to afford paying coaches and executives significantly more money.

I’ve seen some similar comments to this. Am I missing something? Have the Packers lost out on or couldn’t retain coaches/executives due to salary demands?
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
4,466
Reaction score
734
I’ve seen some similar comments to this. Am I missing something? Have the Packers lost out on or couldn’t retain coaches/executives due to salary demands?
I don't think so, not with 39 wins in the last 3 years. And as for infrastructure, I think the Packers have one of the best training facilities in the NFL.
 

sschind

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
4,813
Reaction score
1,111
I think, for newer coaches anyway, the opportunity would mean more than the money. What I mean is if you are young and its your first shot at a HC, or any promotion really, you are first going to look at it like this is my big chance. Unless the organization is a train wreck from top to bottom most guys are going to jump at the chance. If you are in demand you might start looking at the money but even then I think the individual situations would take precedent over the paycheck. Do you really want to take a million more and coach the Jaguars or take a million less and coach the Packers.

I would think most coaches are smarter than most players so they are going to weigh other factors besides money more heavily. Plus most coaches, if they are any good, will have a better chance at a longer coaching career thus make more money in the long run. Taking the first opportunity that comes your way, if it is setting you up for failure, might shorten your career.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
4,466
Reaction score
734
I think, for newer coaches anyway, the opportunity would mean more than the money. What I mean is if you are young and its your first shot at a HC, or any promotion really, you are first going to look at it like this is my big chance. Unless the organization is a train wreck from top to bottom most guys are going to jump at the chance. If you are in demand you might start looking at the money but even then I think the individual situations would take precedent over the paycheck. Do you really want to take a million more and coach the Jaguars or take a million less and coach the Packers.

I would think most coaches are smarter than most players so they are going to weigh other factors besides money more heavily. Plus most coaches, if they are any good, will have a better chance at a longer coaching career thus make more money in the long run. Taking the first opportunity that comes your way, if it is setting you up for failure, might shorten your career.
All good points. And if an organization has a history of coaching excellence, and a highly-regarded GM, it would be possible to recruit up and down the coaching chain on reputation. And to that point, GB would be an excellent landing spot for someone looking to eventually move up.

I also agree that for promotions, primarily HC, OC, DC - a candidate would consider the location second as long as the organization is good.

Jobs like these are tough on families. First of all, the good candidates are going to move around, uprooting their family in the process. Then there is the demand of the job. I'm guessing a HC puts in 70-80 hours/week during the season, and probably a lot of the coaching staff. Finally, there is all the in-season travel.

But people are paid well for these jobs, and families adjust, or not. But thinking it through, Green Bay would be a pretty good spot for a career pro-football person to land.

And they're gonna love the brats! (I lived in CA for 18 years. Nice place, but they do NOT know how to make a brat, or a good fish fry for that matter.)
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
27,888
Reaction score
2,492
Have the Packers lost out on or couldn’t retain coaches/executives due to salary demands?

The only time I heard of a coach deciding against signing with the Packers because of money was when they low balled Darren Rizzi to become their special teams coordinator in 2019.

That didn't work out well for the team.
 

El Guapo

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
5,745
Reaction score
1,210
Location
Land 'O Lakes
I don't think any of these teams are generally operating with deficits. Covid was the biggest hit to league financials and it was easily weathered by all teams. One year of negative profits compared to decades of profit? A "deep pocket" owner really means nothing here. Jerry Jones is not reaching into his pocket to pay coaches. If anything, he is pinching pennies in order to put more money into his pocket. The Packers don't have that "problem" and therefore should feel free to spend on the best coaches as it is deserved. They have an awfully big cushion to absorb hits.

I don't know if any of you read the Packers annual report that I linked, but their balance sheet shows over $500 million in cash & investments on $1.2 Billion in assets. The Packers are probably more financially sound than any other team, including the owners with "deep pockets." I doubt any of those owners have $500M sitting around in cash ready to plug holes as needed. Many of them are leveraged, money is tied up in real estate, etc.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
4,466
Reaction score
734
I don't think any of these teams are generally operating with deficits. Covid was the biggest hit to league financials and it was easily weathered by all teams. One year of negative profits compared to decades of profit? A "deep pocket" owner really means nothing here. Jerry Jones is not reaching into his pocket to pay coaches. If anything, he is pinching pennies in order to put more money into his pocket. The Packers don't have that "problem" and therefore should feel free to spend on the best coaches as it is deserved. They have an awfully big cushion to absorb hits.

I don't know if any of you read the Packers annual report that I linked, but their balance sheet shows over $500 million in cash & investments on $1.2 Billion in assets. The Packers are probably more financially sound than any other team, including the owners with "deep pockets." I doubt any of those owners have $500M sitting around in cash ready to plug holes as needed. Many of them are leveraged, money is tied up in real estate, etc.
Yeah it seems like the biggest ongoing expense for any team would be coaches' salaries (not counting player salaries here as they're all the same, or should be). I don't see that being a problem in GB and you cite some numbers from their financials. This financial cushion also gives the Packers funds for further stadium improvements, additions, etc.

I assume the league handles advertising. There's a reason we hear the word "parity" a lot.
 

Packer Fan in SD

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
800
Reaction score
148
The rich owner can potentially offer more guaranteed to players because the amount guaranteed must be placed in an escrow account. If a team doesn't have the $150 mil for this guy and $80 mil for that one, then they would not be able to offer the contract to one or the other (very simplistic example). Now combine the total amount of guaranteed money not yet paid, that is what now must be in escrow. A rich team owner can borrow against his own position regardless of source.

This is why it is so important what MM has done with the whole Titletown District and plans for the surrounding area. It keeps the Packers viable, in fact in a much better position than some owners, such as Davis in Vegas.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
4,466
Reaction score
734
The rich owner can potentially offer more guaranteed to players because the amount guaranteed must be placed in an escrow account. If a team doesn't have the $150 mil for this guy and $80 mil for that one, then they would not be able to offer the contract to one or the other (very simplistic example). Now combine the total amount of guaranteed money not yet paid, that is what now must be in escrow. A rich team owner can borrow against his own position regardless of source.

This is why it is so important what MM has done with the whole Titletown District and plans for the surrounding area. It keeps the Packers viable, in fact in a much better position than some owners, such as Davis in Vegas.
Now this is very interesting and, at least for me, stuff I didn't know. I didn't know that guaranteed money had to be put in escrow, but that only makes sense. The player(s) and agent(s)would want to know that the amount has been set aside. I also didn't know an owner can borrow against his or her assets, no matter what or where they are to use in the football operation. But that also makes sense (as long as they can wrangle board approval from other companies).

So yeah, MM and the Board's investments in Lambeau, Titletown, etc. have increased the value of the franchise and provided a new source of income. Kinda like taking an old house, making improvements, and having the final value exceed the dollar amount of the improvements.

What I'm wondering is if the owner can borrow against assets and use those funds to cover guaranteed compensation in escrow. That's riskier because they are borrowed funds. Yeah they're collateralized, but other creditors may have first claims to those assets. (That's why we have lawyers.)

Anyway, this is a really good example of how a wealthy owner has an advantage. They can offer deals that a less-wealthy owner could not.

My last trip to Lambeau was in the 80s in December against Atlanta. Despite the Lambeau mystique, I remember looking around and thinking there's nothing special about the place and it oughta be razed to build a new facility. In the end that's what was done, it was just done very creatively. And a new stadium would NOT be Lambeau. That place is hallowed ground. Now it's the third largest NFL stadium by seating capacity. I grew up here, moved away, and came back to retire. Never stopped bleeding green and gold.

And there are probably other ways to monetize Lambeau. Do deals with local casinos and offer day trips to Titletown, the Packer HOF. I know from living in CA for 18 years that Packer fans are EVERYWHERE! A lot of them would make a pilgrimage to Green Bay, in season or not, just to see Lambeau. Yeah, it really is a special place.

Anyway Packer Fan, thanks so much for this info. Very interesting and good job!
 
Last edited:

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
27,888
Reaction score
2,492
A "deep pocket" owner really means nothing here. Jerry Jones is not reaching into his pocket to pay coaches. If anything, he is pinching pennies in order to put more money into his pocket.

Jones isn't reaching into his pocket to pay coaches. But he did to build AT&T Stadium, the Star (Cowboys' headquarters and training facility) etc.

The Packers don't have that "problem" and therefore should feel free to spend on the best coaches as it is deserved. They have an awfully big cushion to absorb hits.

On the other hand the Packers don't have a wealthy owner to pay for stadium improvents and development around it.

Why are you so adamant about the Packers paying top money for coaches??? In my opinion they have been doing pretty well with their approach.

I don't know if any of you read the Packers annual report that I linked, but their balance sheet shows over $500 million in cash & investments on $1.2 Billion in assets. The Packers are probably more financially sound than any other team, including the owners with "deep pockets." I doubt any of those owners have $500M sitting around in cash ready to plug holes as needed. Many of them are leveraged, money is tied up in real estate, etc.

First of all, is there any reason you ignore that the Packers reserve fund dropped from $511M to $440M in only six months because of the stock market fall? I guess most other teams have investments in assets in at least a similar number than the Packers.

While I agree the team is in a sound fiscal situation you're completely fooling yourself if you believe they're in a better one than most other teams around the league.

The salary cap being in place is the only reason the Packers are able to stay competitive. Without it other teams would have a much higher payroll than Green Bay could ever afford.

And even with that, the team is dependent on creating local revenue with developments like Titletown to make enough money in the smallest market in the league to make it work.

Murphy has done a great job in that regard.

As a side note, the money in the reserve fund isn't kept under his pillow as well.

I don't see that being a problem in GB and you cite some numbers from their financials. This financial cushion also gives the Packers funds for further stadium improvements, additions, etc.

While it might seem the Packers have a ton of money in their reserve fund you need to be aware that when the new video boards at Lambeau are completed in 2023 the team will have invested $600M into stadium improvements over the past decade.

They need to make operational profits on a regular basis to be able to do such things as they don't have a wealthy owner paying for it.

I assume the league handles advertising. There's a reason we hear the word "parity" a lot.

You need to distinguish between national and local revenue. National revenue is shared equally amongst all teams while clubs are allowed to keep revenue generated locally.

FYI the team received $347.3 million of national revenue last season and created a total of $231.7 million of local revenue during the last fiscal year.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
4,466
Reaction score
734
Jones isn't reaching into his pocket to pay coaches. But he did to build AT&T Stadium, the Star (Cowboys' headquarters and training facility) etc.



On the other hand the Packers don't have a wealthy owner to pay for stadium improvents and development around it.

Why are you so adamant about the Packers paying top money for coaches??? In my opinion they have been doing pretty well with their approach.



First of all, is there any reason you ignore that the Packers reserve fund dropped from $511M to $440M in only six months because of the stock market fall? I guess most other teams have investments in assets in at least a similar number than the Packers.

While I agree the team is in a sound fiscal situation you're completely fooling yourself if you believe they're in a better one than most other teams around the league.

The salary cap being in place is the only reason the Packers are able to stay competitive. Without it other teams would have a much higher payroll than Green Bay could ever afford.

And even with that, the team is dependent on creating local revenue with developments like Titletown to make enough money in the smallest market in the league to make it work.

Murphy has done a great job in that regard.

As a side note, the money in the reserve fund isn't kept under his pillow as well.



While it might seem the Packers have a ton of money in their reserve fund you need to be aware that when the new video boards at Lambeau are completed in 2023 the team will have invested $600M into stadium improvements over the past decade.

They need to make operational profits on a regular basis to be able to do such things as they don't have a wealthy owner paying for it.



You need to distinguish between national and local revenue. National revenue is shared equally amongst all teams while clubs are allowed to keep revenue generated locally.

FYI the team received $347.3 million of national revenue last season and created a total of $231.7 million of local revenue during the last fiscal year.
I had no idea they spent $600 mil over the last decade. Interesting. And the local revenue number is larger than I would have guessed. How do they generate local revenue? Is that ticket sales, concessions, shops in Titletown? It seems like a pretty healthy number compared to the national number.

Another fact that surprised me is that Lambeau has the third largest seating capacity in the league - somewhere around 81,400 - and the games are always sold out.

Considering all these facts, it's interesting that a small town in WI can support a team, much less thrive - and especially in the absence of a wealthy owner. I've been following the Packers all my life, and it amazes me what they've done.
 

El Guapo

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
5,745
Reaction score
1,210
Location
Land 'O Lakes
Jones isn't reaching into his pocket to pay coaches. But he did to build AT&T Stadium, the Star (Cowboys' headquarters and training facility) etc.
Like a child, you instinctively disagree without thinking or critically reading first. You literally copied what I said to make an argument. You quoted me saying that Jones doesn't reach into his pocket to pay coaches. Again, this is not just offering different opinions in a forum. This is your smug way of trying to seem smarter than others. It's an old bit that is not appreciated by myself or others on this forum.

Why are you so adamant about the Packers paying top money for coaches??? In my opinion they have been doing pretty well with their approach.
You can construe it as adamant, but I'm just replying to your unrelenting replies. I agreed that I think that LaFleur is being appropriately compensated. My comment is about how they pay coaches in general. You admitted that they lowballed on special teams, which is exactly my point. The Packers don't need to low ball. They need to be reasonable, responsible, and willing to pay top dollar for top coaches.

First of all, is there any reason you ignore that the Packers reserve fund dropped from $511M to $440M in only six months because of the stock market fall? I guess most other teams have investments in assets in at least a similar number than the Packers.
First of all, how am I ignoring it? Because I didn't post it? I linked the financial statment and gave the relevant information in a post. If you confronted me on it and I refused to acknowledge it, then you would have an argument. All you have is one-side argument...again.

Second of all, you got it backwards. The Packers Cash & Investments increased from $422M in 2020 to $511M in 2021. So you should double-check before launching into these arguments. Read enough of these and you would see that the Packers Cash & Investments dipped by $22M between 2019 and 2020 due to the Covid-19 stock market drop. In 2021, it rose by $89M. Not included is that hidden in their written description for 2021, is a revelation that their Net Income of $60.7M is "the result of an unprecedented rebound in the investment markets after the March 2020 downturn." Later on, they stated that "A strong balance sheet allowed us to withstand the pandemic and position us for future success."
You must be logged in to see this image or video!


While I agree the team is in a sound fiscal situation you're completely fooling yourself if you believe they're in a better one than most other teams around the league.
Fooling myself? Based upon what information? Do you know the financial positions of the other teams in the league? That would be how one would support such a statement.
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
27,888
Reaction score
2,492
And the local revenue number is larger than I would have guessed. How do they generate local revenue? Is that ticket sales, concessions, shops in Titletown? It seems like a pretty healthy number compared to the national number.

The NFL considers all revenue as local which isn't included in the League Media or NFL Ventures/Postseason all revenue. See the relevant portion of the CBA below.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!


Considering all these facts, it's interesting that a small town in WI can support a team, much less thrive - and especially in the absence of a wealthy owner. I've been following the Packers all my life, and it amazes me what they've done.

It's definitely amazing but wouldn't be possible without revenue sharing around the league and a salary cap in place.

Like a child, you instinctively disagree without thinking or critically reading first. You literally copied what I said to make an argument. You quoted me saying that Jones doesn't reach into his pocket to pay coaches.

Actually you're the one acting like a child because you can't deal with another poster disagreeing with one of your points of view. Unfortunately that happens way too much around here and in society overall.

Once again, I agree that most owners don't need to reach into their pocket to pay for a coach at this point. But if the Packers were the one to drive up the prices for coaches and executives (as you suggest) other teams would be in a far better situation to afford doing that without having to rely on operational profit.

Again, this is not just offering different opinions in a forum. This is your smug way of trying to seem smarter than others. It's an old bit that is not appreciated by myself or others on this forum.

As I've mentioned in the past, I don't care if my posts are appreciated by others around here. I'm on the forum to talk about the Packers and will offer my opinion on topics whether you like it or not. It's not my problem if you can't deal with it.

I agreed that I think that LaFleur is being appropriately compensated. My comment is about how they pay coaches in general. You admitted that they lowballed on special teams, which is exactly my point. The Packers don't need to low ball. They need to be reasonable, responsible, and willing to pay top dollar for top coaches.

They low balled a coach once, otherwise they have mostly done an excellent job of hiring and retaining coaches in Green Bay. You act as if it has been a huge issue for the Packers when in reality there's absolutely no truth to it at all. The current coaching staff seems to be a very good one completely satisfied with their current deals. Therefore I don't see any reason to offer them any more money for whatever reason.

Second of all, you got it backwards. The Packers Cash & Investments increased from $422M in 2020 to $511M in 2021. So you should double-check before launching into these arguments. Read enough of these and you would see that the Packers Cash & Investments dipped by $22M between 2019 and 2020 due to the Covid-19 stock market drop. In 2021, it rose by $89M. Not included is that hidden in their written description for 2021, is a revelation that their Net Income of $60.7M is "the result of an unprecedented rebound in the investment markets after the March 2020 downturn." Later on, they stated that "A strong balance sheet allowed us to withstand the pandemic and position us for future success."
You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Maybe you missed it but we're currently living in 2022. While the reserve fund exceeded $500 million only six months ago it has dropped to $440 million as of now because of the stock market fall. So you better double-check your facts before correcting another poster.



Fooling myself? Based upon what information? Do you know the financial positions of the other teams in the league? That would be how one would support such a statement.

It's actually not that difficult to figure out the net worth of most NFL owners (try Google to figure it out). Spoiler alert, all of them have significantly more money than the Packers do in their reserve fund.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
4,466
Reaction score
734
The NFL considers all revenue as local which isn't included in the League Media or NFL Ventures/Postseason all revenue. See the relevant portion of the CBA below.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!




It's definitely amazing but wouldn't be possible without revenue sharing around the league and a salary cap in place.



Actually you're the one acting like a child because you can't deal with another poster disagreeing with one of your points of view. Unfortunately that happens way too much around here and in society overall.

Once again, I agree that most owners don't need to reach into their pocket to pay for a coach at this point. But if the Packers were the one to drive up the prices for coaches and executives (as you suggest) other teams would be in a far better situation to afford doing that without having to rely on operational profit.



As I've mentioned in the past, I don't care if my posts are appreciated by others around here. I'm on the forum to talk about the Packers and will offer my opinion on topics whether you like it or not. It's not my problem if you can't deal with it.



They low balled a coach once, otherwise they have mostly done an excellent job of hiring and retaining coaches in Green Bay. You act as if it has been a huge issue for the Packers when in reality there's absolutely no truth to it at all. The current coaching staff seems to be a very good one completely satisfied with their current deals. Therefore I don't see any reason to offer them any more money for whatever reason.



Maybe you missed it but we're currently living in 2022. While the reserve fund exceeded $500 million only six months ago it has dropped to $440 million as of now because of the stock market fall. So you better double-check your facts before correcting another poster.





It's actually not that difficult to figure out the net worth of most NFL owners (try Google to figure it out). Spoiler alert, all of them have significantly more money than the Packers do in their reserve fund.
Thanks for all that background info about revenue sources, interesting stuff. And I do agree that without revenue sharing there would very likely be no football in GB.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
9,399
Reaction score
2,458
I think we should sharecrop with all teams financially more sound than us. Especially New England and Dallas, so we can help spend their $. Like my wife with my credit cards.. you know.. become Partners
 
Top