The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community

The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/index.php)
-   Orange Mane Central Discussion (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Panthers Financials Leaked (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=110356)

tesnyde 03-09-2013 08:23 AM

Panthers Financials Leaked
 
Richardson was one of the most vocal poor me owners. He is anything but poor and has a healthy operating profit....plus with the new TV deal next it will grow.

http://deadspin.com/carolina-panthers/

He also tried to get tax payers to fork over more money.

Chris 03-09-2013 12:19 PM

What a prick

rugbythug 03-09-2013 12:20 PM

Old

dsmoot 03-09-2013 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tesnyde (Post 3807614)
Richardson was one of the most vocal poor me owners. He is anything but poor and has a healthy operating profit....plus with the new TV deal next it will grow.

http://deadspin.com/carolina-panthers/

He also tried to get tax payers to fork over more money.

Do we always believe every internet spin article. There are other stories that paint the man in a completely different light. He is a self made man. He caught a touchdown pass from Johnny Unitas in the NFL's "Greatest Game" in 1958. He walked away from the game on his own terms when the Colts wouldn't give him a $250 raise. He by far isn't the first owner in any sport to pass on expenses to the fans and he won't be the last. He took an unpopular path in getting the Panthers back in a better financial situation quickly but he is the OWNER. My goodness, he doesn't owe an answer to anyone.

03-09-2013 03:12 PM

It doesn't look that good to me. It shows net income dwindling to $26 million in 2012, which is pretty low for such a large amount of capital tied up.

See, capital has a cost. It migrates elswhere. If you have something that is worth $500 million, and it throws off $26 million in net income, then you're making about 5% return on the capital that is tied up. May as well put it in the bank or buy a a piece of land.

When you consider Joe Flacco will make $20 million next year, net income of $26 million for owning and entire team is a warning sign.

The main thing the owners wanted fixed was the salary cap being a percentage of total revenue, rather than the messed up formula it was before.

Tombstone RJ 03-09-2013 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay3 (Post 3807795)
It doesn't look that good to me. It shows net income dwindling to $26 million in 2012, which is pretty low for such a large amount of capital tied up.

See, capital has a cost. It migrates elswhere. If you have something that is worth $500 million, and it throws off $26 million in net income, then you're making about 5% return on the capital that is tied up. May as well put it in the bank or buy a a piece of land.

When you consider Joe Flacco will make $20 million next year, net income of $26 million for owning and entire team is a warning sign.

The main thing the owners wanted fixed was the salary cap being a percentage of total revenue, rather than the messed up formula it was before.

Dude, that is Richardson's NET income. That means after all his bills are paid, after he's paid all his employees and all operating costs, he's walking home with $26 million dollars in his pocket.

This is not gross income, it's net income. Anyone coming out with $26m in their pockets after everything is paid for is doing just fine. I'm guessing that $26m is his net income after taxes too.

tesnyde 03-09-2013 03:43 PM

Here is the article I first saw published in the Sporting News yesterday. It gives more detail. I pulled the Deadspin because its the original source.

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nfl/stor...um-report-says

Prodigal19 03-09-2013 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ (Post 3807798)
Dude, that is Richardson's NET income. That means after all his bills are paid, after he's paid all his employees and all operating costs, he's walking home with $26 million dollars in his pocket.

This is not gross income, it's net income. Anyone coming out with $26m in their pockets after everything is paid for is doing just fine. I'm guessing that $26m is his net income after taxes too.

He realizes that its net income. His entire point is that 26 million dollars of net income really isn't all that high in comparison to the amount of capital tied up in the team. There's hardly any point in even owning the team if he he only making 26 million dollars on a team worth a billion dollars. There are other places he can invest his money and get larger returns.

Atwater His Ass 03-09-2013 06:45 PM

Who cares?
Does any of this make the NFL any less of the busniess that it is? Players nor owners really give a **** about anything but money. Just like the rest of the world. So if an owner played cards to his advantage to make more money, so what? That's why they hire a CEO like Goodell....to maximize profits.

Tombstone RJ 03-09-2013 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prodigal19 (Post 3807831)
He realizes that its net income. His entire point is that 26 million dollars of net income really isn't all that high in comparison to the amount of capital tied up in the team. There's hardly any point in even owning the team if he he only making 26 million dollars on a team worth a billion dollars. There are other places he can invest his money and get larger returns.

He should sell the team them. And, the team ain't worth billions, hundreds of millions yes, but not billions.

His take home pay is just fine.

03-09-2013 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tesnyde (Post 3807614)
Richardson was one of the most vocal poor me owners. He is anything but poor and has a healthy operating profit....plus with the new TV deal next it will grow.

http://deadspin.com/carolina-panthers/

He also tried to get tax payers to fork over more money.

In two years he profited $112 million and he wants taxpayer money?

The time for Corporate Welfare is coming to an end.

mwill07 03-09-2013 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bacchus (Post 3807936)
In two years he profited $112 million and he wants taxpayer money?

The time for Corporate Welfare is coming to an end.

this. Panthers pocketed $112M between 2010 and 2011, on the basis that they wouldn't know what the lockout would bring...fine, I get that this is not the normal operating situation. Why can't that same $112M that was saved not be applied towards the $200M or whatever they want to spend on re-doing a 15 year old stadium?

I guess in principle I'm against using public money to fund private enterprises. It's wrong at every level but especially when the city can't pay for it's own obligations.

dsmoot 03-10-2013 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mwill07 (Post 3807948)
this. Panthers pocketed $112M between 2010 and 2011, on the basis that they wouldn't know what the lockout would bring...fine, I get that this is not the normal operating situation. Why can't that same $112M that was saved not be applied towards the $200M or whatever they want to spend on re-doing a 15 year old stadium?

I guess in principle I'm against using public money to fund private enterprises. It's wrong at every level but especially when the city can't pay for it's own obligations.

I started to argue against you on this point but after finding out that the Panthers own their stadium outright, you have a point. Very few NFL teams own their stadium.

In business, improving infrastructure will result in the cost being passed to the consumer unless competitive forces prevent that from happening. In the NFL, there is no competition. So, the Panther fans will pay for it, count on it. If Mr Richardson wants public money, he could sell interest in the stadium back to the City of Charlotte.

In reality, NFL ownership have an emotional card they can play against the fan base. If they don't get what they want from the current situation, they can move the team. See the Raiders, Colts and Browns/Ravens. Mr. Richardson, 76 yrs old, will not be passing the team on to family members. He takes great pride in purchasing a team and placing it in his home region of the country. He is well respected by the fan base in that region of the country. He has been willing, maybe not recently, to spend money to get the team in the Superbowl. This will play out.

03-10-2013 11:59 AM

If I was a city boss, I wouldn't contribute to a stadium for some team. I'd let them go to some city that will.

But it wouldn't have to do with checking their balance sheet and making some decision about how much money they should make. Cities and states give incentives all the time to bring industry to their state (jobs and economic development, spurring the economy), and the whole point is that the company will be making money.

I figure the reconfiguration of roads, parking, etc. is enough of a helping hand.

03-10-2013 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mwill07 (Post 3807948)
Why can't that same $112M that was saved not be applied towards the $200M or whatever they want to spend on re-doing a 15 year old stadium?

It's more expensive than that. Stadiums have gotten incredibly expensive for what you have to have.

And the net income was trending down. One reason they went ahead and pulled in two years is the later it gets, the worse the picture gets.

In other words, the trend of the revenues fully supports the position that (1) the salary cap situation needed to be addressed; and (2) revenues were flattening and the stadium situation would need to be addressed to create more possibilities and corporate boxes.

I've got no sympathy or even empathy for a team or business trying to re-jigger the math and get what they want. By the same token, I have no self-righteous smugness about it, either -- the NFL is a business, run by millionaires, played by millionaires. And as life would have it, the vast majority of people can never play or coach at that level. It's just to entertain the rest of us schlubs.

03-10-2013 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ (Post 3807898)
He should sell the team them. And, the team ain't worth billions, hundreds of millions yes, but not billions.

His take home pay is just fine.

How much would you pay for the right to make $26 million in net income a year? Don't change the numbers or make it more, just consider the question -- how much is that income stream worth to you?

And the choices are more than just "sell the team." The choices include such steps as "address all the things holding you back from making more, and try to make more." It's what just about every single man and woman has ever done when in that situation. Try to increase it.

Tombstone RJ 03-10-2013 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay3 (Post 3808092)
How much would you pay for the right to make $26 million in net income a year? Don't change the numbers or make it more, just consider the question -- how much is that income stream worth to you?

And the choices are more than just "sell the team." The choices include such steps as "address all the things holding you back from making more, and try to make more." It's what just about every single man and woman has ever done when in that situation. Try to increase it.

Isn't this $26m for one year? How about seeing this net income over a period of 10 years, that is, how does it average out?

gyldenlove 03-10-2013 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay3 (Post 3808092)
How much would you pay for the right to make $26 million in net income a year? Don't change the numbers or make it more, just consider the question -- how much is that income stream worth to you?

And the choices are more than just "sell the team." The choices include such steps as "address all the things holding you back from making more, and try to make more." It's what just about every single man and woman has ever done when in that situation. Try to increase it.

I would borrow 10 trillion dollars if I could make a net income of 26 million per year.

Atwater His Ass 03-10-2013 01:53 PM

Using public money to fund stadiums is business 101. Why use your own money when you can use another's to benefit yourself?

Same reason people take out loans on stuff....when you can make more with your own investments than the interest rate you're paying on a loan, it would be stupid not to.

The cities choice is usually either pony up some tax payer dollars, or lose your team to another city that will. Just business. Owners don't care if they are playing in city A or city B; they just care which city will benefit their bottom line the most.

03-10-2013 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ (Post 3808101)
Isn't this $26m for one year? How about seeing this net income over a period of 10 years, that is, how does it average out?

Assume for simplicity it's $26 million a year projected out as far as one can project, with obvious risk that you won't make that.

03-10-2013 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gyldenlove (Post 3808116)
I would borrow 10 trillion dollars if I could make a net income of 26 million per year.

The net income of $26 million that you observe before the transaction does not include the interest you have to pay on whatever you borrow (or any interest that any owner has). The interest on 10 trillion would be about $500 billion a year. And no one would loan it to you, because you would have a business that throws off $26 million a year.

So, fail. Try again.

Tombstone RJ 03-11-2013 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay3 (Post 3808149)
Assume for simplicity it's $26 million a year projected out as far as one can project, with obvious risk that you won't make that.

Nope. If you want to project, you go back the last 3 years (minimum) and see what the average is, then this allows you a pretty safe projection for the next coming year. Richardson is saying he netted $26m for this last year, right?

I asked for Richardson's average net income over the previous 10 years. You either understand this or you don't.

03-11-2013 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ (Post 3808614)
Nope. If you want to project, you go back the last 3 years (minimum) and see what the average is, then this allows you a pretty safe projection for the next coming year. Richardson is saying he netted $26m for this last year, right?

I asked for Richardson's average net income over the previous 10 years. You either understand this or you don't.

Which is information we don't have. This was fun.

My point was a very simple hypothetical exercise, not an actual quest for knowledge about what they've actually made. I'm 100% certain they've made made way more than $26 million a year for the vast majority of their history. The point is that $26 million a year is a disturbing trend, that the cost structure did need addressing at that level -- because Deadspin is asking us to conclude that these financials alone show that Jerry Richardson had no business opening his mouth.

So it would have been more relevant to extrapolate from these financials -- since they are all we have and what the Deadspin article as about -- but good luck on your quest for more information.

Mediator12 03-11-2013 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ (Post 3808614)
Nope. If you want to project, you go back the last 3 years (minimum) and see what the average is, then this allows you a pretty safe projection for the next coming year. Richardson is saying he netted $26m for this last year, right?

I asked for Richardson's average net income over the previous 10 years. You either understand this or you don't.

The problem here is you are acting like this is not a business and its a salary for some non-invested CEO with a huge Golden Parachute even if he screws up. The guy owns a business, whose largest outlay is in payroll to people who go broke in 3 years after leaving the business making millions of dollars and then come back and want handouts because they blew all the money. Plus, they want benefits and the ability to sue you because they did a dangerous job for them physically, even though they more than knew the risks.

Making 26 Million in NET INCOME against the possibility of losing lawsuits going forward from entitled former employees is not that nice of a margin.

In your scenario of 3 years, you are assuming that money does not go back into the business or in to the rainy day fund to protect against future losses as well. Business owners take a crapload of risk, and that is why they get the big money if it comes to light.

In my job, I look at opportunity cost, efficiency, and process every day. In short, I analyze the efficacy of businesses and project how they can improve and protect themselves going forward with short, medium, and long term goals. The NFL is doing all of the above in the current economic environment. One in which people still grossly overpaid for the entertainment value to watch live in person and in the electronic media. The Demand is still driving the ability to influence public funding into the teams. And the owners are simply exploiting their advantages, just like other business owners do everyday. I have a saying, "Life is unfair, but since it is, it might as well be unfair in your favor!" That is how Business is done in this country, like it or not.

I have seen all kinds of economic models on the impact of NFL franchises to the communities they play in, and one thing is for certain, they bring a ton of Money, power, and influence to cities that have them. It not only has direct economic impact, but it indirectly helps these cities attract new Business and helps them raise taxes to support themselves in the long run. Sure they offer incentives to teams and businesses to move there, but eventually those expire and they will get those revenues in the medium term.

However, the NFL franchises always operate on the worst case scenario models and work there way forward to agreement. The NFLPA does the same thing. That is why these dramatic battles happen all the time in the media. Both sides cry wolf, and then negotiate from poor faith and blaming tactics in the media. Pretty petty in real life, but it's also a huge show. They know what's going to happen, and the last CBA showed that, despite the NFLPA winning a terribly ridiculous legal decision.

The sheer amount of variables that go into running these Franchises is staggering. I have seen brief glimpses of the complexity of the salary cap, stadium revenues, player (employee) acquisition and retention costs, and merchandise revenues. None of that is the whole picture though and nobody on this side comes close to understanding this situation anywhere near close enough to comment on it except theoretically. For a media outlet to publish this and try and analyze it just goes to show you how desperate they are to CREATE stories anymore instead of reporting them. Much ado about nothing in the end.

Tombstone RJ 03-11-2013 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay3 (Post 3808750)
Which is information we don't have. This was fun.

My point was a very simple hypothetical exercise, not an actual quest for knowledge about what they've actually made. I'm 100% certain they've made made way more than $26 million a year for the vast majority of their history. The point is that $26 million a year is a disturbing trend, that the cost structure did need addressing at that level -- because Deadspin is asking us to conclude that these financials alone show that Jerry Richardson had no business opening his mouth.

So it would have been more relevant to extrapolate from these financials -- since they are all we have and what the Deadspin article as about -- but good luck on your quest for more information.

And my point is you don't know if this is a trend or an anomoly, right? So average out the last 3 years (you do this with expenses to project doing the cost of business) in order to have a relatively accurate projection of what will occure the next year.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:01 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.