The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Orange Mane Discussion > Orange Mane Central Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-09-2013, 09:23 AM   #1
tesnyde
Paradigm Coordinator
 
tesnyde's Avatar
 
Keepit nuttier than a squirrel turd

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,011
Default 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.

Last edited by tesnyde; 03-09-2013 at 09:27 AM..
tesnyde is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 03-09-2013, 01:19 PM   #2
Chris
Millenium Scrooge McDuck
 
Chris's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,528

Adopt-a-Bronco:
OrlandoFranklin
Default

What a prick
Chris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2013, 01:20 PM   #3
rugbythug
Church Eyes.
 
rugbythug's Avatar
 
Salty Dog

Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,072

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Mr. Miller
Default

Old
rugbythug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2013, 03:59 PM   #4
dsmoot
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,740
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tesnyde View Post
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.
dsmoot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2013, 04:12 PM   #5
Jay3
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2013, 04:27 PM   #6
Tombstone RJ
Ring of Famer
 
Tombstone RJ's Avatar
 
Old School

Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Tetons!
Posts: 22,309

Adopt-a-Bronco:
WorrellWilliams
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay3 View Post
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.
Tombstone RJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2013, 04:43 PM   #7
tesnyde
Paradigm Coordinator
 
tesnyde's Avatar
 
Keepit nuttier than a squirrel turd

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,011
Default

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

Last edited by tesnyde; 03-10-2013 at 03:17 PM..
tesnyde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2013, 05:57 PM   #8
Prodigal19
Seasoned Veteran
 
Prodigal19's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 422
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ View Post
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.
Prodigal19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2013, 07:45 PM   #9
Atwater His Ass
Ring of Famer
 
Atwater His Ass's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,031

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

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.
Atwater His Ass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2013, 08:30 PM   #10
Tombstone RJ
Ring of Famer
 
Tombstone RJ's Avatar
 
Old School

Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Tetons!
Posts: 22,309

Adopt-a-Bronco:
WorrellWilliams
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prodigal19 View Post
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.
Tombstone RJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2013, 10:36 PM   #11
Bacchus
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tesnyde View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2013, 11:48 PM   #12
mwill07
Ring of Famer
 
mwill07's Avatar
 
Lurker Extraordinaire

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 2,107

Adopt-a-Bronco:
VMFM
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bacchus View Post
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.
mwill07 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2013, 07:21 AM   #13
dsmoot
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,740
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mwill07 View Post
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.
dsmoot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2013, 12:59 PM   #14
Jay3
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2013, 01:04 PM   #15
Jay3
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mwill07 View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2013, 01:07 PM   #16
Jay3
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2013, 01:19 PM   #17
Tombstone RJ
Ring of Famer
 
Tombstone RJ's Avatar
 
Old School

Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Tetons!
Posts: 22,309

Adopt-a-Bronco:
WorrellWilliams
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay3 View Post
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?
Tombstone RJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2013, 02:10 PM   #18
gyldenlove
Ring of Famer
 
gyldenlove's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Nęstved, DK
Posts: 11,209

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Spencer Larsen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay3 View Post
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.
gyldenlove is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2013, 02:53 PM   #19
Atwater His Ass
Ring of Famer
 
Atwater His Ass's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,031

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

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.
Atwater His Ass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2013, 03:16 PM   #20
Jay3
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2013, 03:17 PM   #21
Jay3
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gyldenlove View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2013, 10:24 AM   #22
Tombstone RJ
Ring of Famer
 
Tombstone RJ's Avatar
 
Old School

Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Tetons!
Posts: 22,309

Adopt-a-Bronco:
WorrellWilliams
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay3 View Post
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.
Tombstone RJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2013, 12:06 PM   #23
Jay3
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2013, 01:23 PM   #24
Mediator12
OM analyst
 
Mediator12's Avatar
 
Roby AND Latimer?Who the Hell Knew?

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: INDY
Posts: 10,135

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ View Post
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.
Mediator12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2013, 01:50 PM   #25
Tombstone RJ
Ring of Famer
 
Tombstone RJ's Avatar
 
Old School

Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Tetons!
Posts: 22,309

Adopt-a-Bronco:
WorrellWilliams
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay3 View Post
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.
Tombstone RJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:22 AM.


Denver Broncos