Ongoing CBA discussions

[Defensewins]

It not unusual for the two teams in the Super bowl to report a lower profit margin in that year. I remember Jack Kent Cooke mentioning back in the day that on the years the Redskins won Super Bowls he did make as much money as well, and he did not mind one bit. He was happy. Your season is over a month longer and the expense are much more during a SB run. That is not somethign new.
Plus you have to consider in 2008 when the Pack reported $34M in profit they are 6-10 and did not make the playoffs. In 2009 they lost in the first round and reported $20.1M.
This year they played four extra games and reported $9.8M. The gradual drop off seems about right considering they played four extra games and had to pay for extra things like hotels, buses, practice facilities, SB parades and celebration expenses. Not to mention the salaries raise as you win more. This is more of an internal NFL thing that the winning teams and playoff teams should get more money then those that do not make it to make up for these additional expenses.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

It not unusual for the two teams in the Super bowl to report a lower profit margin in that year. I remember Jack Kent Cooke mentioning back in the day that on the years the Redskins won Super Bowls he did make as much money as well, and he did not mind one bit. He was happy. Your season is over a month longer and the expense are much more during a SB run. That is not somethign new.
Plus you have to consider in 2008 when the Pack reported $34M in profit they are 6-10 and did not make the playoffs. In 2009 they lost in the first round and reported $20.1M.
This year they played four extra games and reported $9.8M. The gradual drop off seems about right considering they played four extra games and had to pay for extra things like hotels, buses, practice facilities, SB parades and celebration expenses. Not to mention the salaries raise as you win more. This is more of an internal NFL thing that the winning teams and playoff teams should get more money then those that do not make it to make up for these additional expenses.

Well the numbers are in reference to the 2009 season.

That said the Packers numbers, while not as terrible as they are presented to be, are not indicative of the situation for all teams...or are they? Open the books, and we'll find out

[saden1]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Well the numbers are in reference to the 2009 season.

That said the Packers numbers, while not as terrible as they are presented to be, are not indicative of the situation for all teams...or are they? Open the books, and we'll find out

The Packers are far from being indicative of the average team in the league...I mean, Packers are the only non-profit, community-owned franchise in American professional sports! Unlike Danny Boy, you won't see them gauge their fans for every penny even though they could.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by saden1

The Packers are far from being indicative of the average team in the league...I mean, Packers are the only non-profit, community-owned franchise in American professional sports! Unlike Danny Boy, you won't see them gauge their fans for every penny even though they could.

I have heard the average player costs across the league have gone up 4%, but I don't have any real confirmation that. But if true, it's much less than nearly 12% the Packers are stating