Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24
  1. #11
    dfosterf's Avatar
    dfosterf is offline Coach
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    987

    Re: The problems with the current CBA

    I know my signature is too wide. I have ALREADY resized it at the "source"--

    (photobucket)

    Where did the signature editing feature go?


    I want a new signature, anyway.

    There. I deleted it completely.

  2. #12
    dfosterf's Avatar
    dfosterf is offline Coach
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    987

    Re: The problems with the current CBA

    Earlier in this thread I spoke of Minnesota and GB in roughly the same boat, financially.

    I'm going to use Forbes' numbers to illustrate some of the "problem".

    Remember, the players are getting 59.8% of total revenue after the deduction of 1 bil to the owners as a collective group. The problem being that the 59.8% distribution to the players includes the non-shared revenue accruing to such teams as the Cowboys. It is driving up expenses for ALL teams, while the unshared revenue portion is relatively flat for most of them, including the Vikes and Pack.

    Let's look at the Cowboys, Vikings and Packers...

    Valuation numbers-

    Dallas- Value 1.8 billion 1 yr. change in value: +162 million
    Minnesota- Value 774 million 1 yr. change in value: -5.14 million
    GB- Value 1.018 billion 1 yr. change in value: unchanged

    Debt-

    Dallas- 198 million
    Minnesota- 279 million
    GB- 2.03 million (By far lowest in league, probably THE key to their continued viability during this CBA as constructed)

    Revenue-

    Dallas- 420 million
    Minnesota- 221 million
    GB- 242 million

    Dallas is #1, Minnesota is 29th, and GB is 15th. Note the differential between 1st and 15th vs. 15th and 29th...

    Average ticket price-

    Dallas- 160.
    Minnesota- 75.
    GB- 63. (raised 9. last year, not sure if Forbes reflected change)

    Player costs-

    Dallas- 143 million
    Minnesota- 140 million
    GB- 147 million

    Operating income ("profit")-

    Dallas- 143.3 million
    Minnesota- 17.9 million
    GB- 9.8 million

    --------------------

    These numbers would reflect the 2009 season, and are FORBES' numbers, not GB's--- We HAVE GB's numbers, due to the "worthless stock certificates" (another little editorial, lol)

    --We know the other expenses of GB, for example, (the only example) and we also know they did NOT make 9.8 mil that Forbes thought they did. They made 4.0 mil, and that is the actual public record.


    ________________________

    More reading for anyone interested-

    http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2004-07-05-revenue-cover_x.htm


    Ancient article, but the problem is the same, except it got WORSE as a result of the 2006 CBA.

  3. #13
    Purple Floyd's Avatar
    Purple Floyd is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    16,646
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: The problems with the current CBA

    Quote Originally Posted by "dfosterf" #1089585
    Earlier in this thread I spoke of Minnesota and GB in roughly the same boat, financially.

    I'm going to use Forbes' numbers to illustrate some of the "problem".

    Remember, the players are getting 59.8% of total revenue after the deduction of 1 bil to the owners as a collective group. The problem being that the 59.8% distribution to the players includes the non-shared revenue accruing to such teams as the Cowboys. It is driving up expenses for ALL teams, while the unshared revenue portion is relatively flat for most of them, including the Vikes and Pack.

    Let's look at the Cowboys, Vikings and Packers...

    Valuation numbers-

    Dallas- Value 1.8 billion 1 yr. change in value: +162 million
    Minnesota- Value 774 million 1 yr. change in value: -5.14 million
    GB- Value 1.018 billion 1 yr. change in value: unchanged

    Debt-

    Dallas- 198 million
    Minnesota- 279 million
    GB- 2.03 million (By far lowest in league, probably THE key to their continued viability during this CBA as constructed)

    Revenue-

    Dallas- 420 million
    Minnesota- 221 million
    GB- 242 million

    Dallas is #1, Minnesota is 29th, and GB is 15th. Note the differential between 1st and 15th vs. 15th and 29th...

    Average ticket price-

    Dallas- 160.
    Minnesota- 75.
    GB- 63. (raised 9. last year, not sure if Forbes reflected change)

    Player costs-

    Dallas- 143 million
    Minnesota- 140 million
    GB- 147 million

    Operating income ("profit")-

    Dallas- 143.3 million
    Minnesota- 17.9 million
    GB- 9.8 million

    --------------------

    These numbers would reflect the 2009 season, and are FORBES' numbers, not GB's--- We HAVE GB's numbers, due to the "worthless stock certificates" (another little editorial, lol)

    --We know the other expenses of GB, for example, (the only example) and we also know they did NOT make 9.8 mil that Forbes thought they did. They made 4.0 mil, and that is the actual public record.


    ________________________

    More reading for anyone interested-

    http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2004-07-05-revenue-cover_x.htm


    Ancient article, but the problem is the same, except it got WORSE as a result of the 2006 CBA.

    Dallas- 198 million
    Minnesota- 279 million
    GB- 2.03 million (By far lowest in league, probably THE key to their continued viability during this CBA as constructed)



    Any idea why the Vikings list a 279 million dollar debt when the stadium is paid off and the player salaries are pretty even with Dallas and GB?

  4. #14
    dfosterf's Avatar
    dfosterf is offline Coach
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    987

    Re: The problems with the current CBA

    It represents the remaining balance of Zygi's loan required to purchase the team in the first place, plus a couple million in other debt that is undisclosed, but probably something from a marketing venture.

    From Forbes:

    The skinny
    Vikings owner Zygmunt Wilf's biggest asset is the termination of his lease at the Metrodome, which expires after the 2011 season. If Wilf does not have an agreement for a new stadium in Minnesota he will probably move the franchise to Los Angeles, where two separate groups want to build new stadiums. Meanwhile, Wilf has been doing everything possible to increase revenue at the 28 year-old Metrodome, such as selling the naming rights to the field to Mall of America and converting the fop floor of an administrative building next to the Metrodome into the Gridiron Club, a 3,800 square-foot high-class sports bar for which members will pay $2,500 a season in addition to the price they pay for Vikings tickets. The Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission, which owns and operates the Metrodome, invested $700,000 in the development of the sports bar. Since 2005, Wilf has paid down some $40 million of the $315 million in debt he took on after buying the team.

  5. #15
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,928

    Re: The problems with the current CBA

    Quote Originally Posted by "seaniemck7" #1089417
    I look forward to participating in this thread. I am frustrated over the lack of knowledge that most fans and some players have even at the most superficial level of the labor situation.

    My biggest concern right now is I don't think the owners, collectively, even know what they want. I don't think they have a consolidated plan. It's pure conjecture on my part, but that's just my gut feeling at this point.

    Thanks for starting the thread.
    Chalk me up as one of those fans my friend.

    I find every aspect of the game fascinating, except this aspect. Makes my head hurt. I will leave it up to smart guys like you to keep me straight on things.
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  6. #16
    dfosterf's Avatar
    dfosterf is offline Coach
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    987

    Re: The problems with the current CBA

    Quote Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1089606
    Quote Originally Posted by "seaniemck7" #1089417
    I look forward to participating in this thread. I am frustrated over the lack of knowledge that most fans and some players have even at the most superficial level of the labor situation.

    My biggest concern right now is I don't think the owners, collectively, even know what they want. I don't think they have a consolidated plan. It's pure conjecture on my part, but that's just my gut feeling at this point.

    Thanks for starting the thread.
    Chalk me up as one of those fans my friend.

    I find every aspect of the game fascinating, except this aspect. Makes my head hurt. I will leave it up to smart guys like you to keep me straight on things.

    At the risk of going off on a major tangent, let me tell you how I got "interested" in the business side of the NFL.

    I'm a Ted Thompson supporter in Puker land, and have been since he got there. The Favre-o-lites and Randy Moss to GBers nicknamed him "Tightwad Ted"...again, we are talking Puker land, from whence I obviously hail.

    So why IS Ted "tight"? I asked myself... Is he "tight", or "handcuffed", etc. He IS a business major with a college "all-scholastic" honor from his college football days...

    I went and figured it out, at least as best as is possible, crunched the numbers, so to speak. Along the way, I got a great appreciation for the challenges facing all of the smaller-market franchises vs. the largest ones...

    For me, it is all about players, ones you might want to keep, ones you might lose-and my extreme shorthand version is for every 2.5 million dollars on average in increased salary to one individual player, you are jeopardizing the retention of one other player you might wish to retain or acquire, at least in GB, on this current model, and my bet is that it is quite similiar in Minny, at least when there remains a pure profitability motive.

    A couple things to consider. Forbes said the number one asset Zygi has is the expiration of his lease. That could be interpreted as some potentially chilling news. 3/4 of the teams must approve a move of the Vikes to LA. Jerry Jones already told us SRS is out, or he and others are going to get credit for having built a new stadium. Also, There is some real doubt that a brand-spanking-new stadium with all the bells-and-whistles would be a financial success in Minnesota for Zygi if the CBA compensation formula does not change. My personal opinion is that it would not. The Cleveland Browns experience since 1999 is what is scaring me for you. They went from 3rd in revenues to.... hell, read the Forbes stuff previously linked...

    Ah, hell--- here http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/30/football-valuations-10_Cleveland-Browns_307074.html

    Their 1999 300 million $$$ stadium is now your 2011 billion $$$$ one, + or -

    THAT would make my head hurt if I was a Vikes fan, and I think the GBPers won a Super Bowl, but lost money in 2010.

  7. #17
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,928

    Re: The problems with the current CBA

    Quote Originally Posted by "dfosterf" #1089612
    So why IS Ted "tight"? I asked myself... Is he "tight", or "handcuffed", etc. He IS a business major with a college "all-scholastic" honor from his college football days...
    I think he could be a bit handcuffed by his revenue stream but don't think that is the reason why he elected not to populate the roster with Vets, instead, choosing to face the fans wrath/displeasure and build through the draft.

    Other teams, i.e. the Steelers have elected to go that way, letting their FA's walk only to fill that void from the bench and have been pretty successful doing it.

    Problem with that process/path is you have to draft well and have a owner (in your case owners) that are willing to live through the hard time as you not only fix your starters, but add the depth behind them on the bench so that you can fix your holes from within instead of having to scour the FA ranks for someone.

    I really liked the way we were headed as it looked like that was what Foley/Spielman were trying to do. First few years we watched alot of youngsters learning on the field mixed with a select few FA's that in most cases were "Nobody's" coming off their first contract that fit the scheme.

    Unfortunately, we started to fill holes with vets in the last 2 years that took some of those valuable picks to get, who really didn't work out. Most of which were QB's.

    I think we will see the TT approach to our QB position this year. Remember, it wasn't long ago that everyone scoffed when he elected to go with Rodgers and a couple of rooks as his backups. Only difference for us will be we won't have a "Rodgers" coming off the bench as the starter. We will be forced to watch as another "TJ" takes the field before he is ready.

    I feel for that kid. If nothing else, we have learned that Vikings fans don't have a clue when it comes to what it takes to groom a QB, especially one that hardly played QB at the last level. I just hope that the new kid comes from a program were the learning curve isn't so steep.
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  8. #18
    dfosterf's Avatar
    dfosterf is offline Coach
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    987

    Re: The problems with the current CBA

    I should have never characterized it as me thinking he was "tight". (Ted)

    I was explaining how I came to be interested in the $$$ aspect, and was using my acquired knowledge to refute some of the ridiculous b.s. I'd hear about getting guys like Haynesworth, et.al

    Ted ostensibly has always had free reign to make football decisions without being financially hand-cuffed. He has said that Mark has never told him what to do from a $$$ perspective. I have always respected his methodology, even when I know he is making short-term sacrifices in the interest of long-term goals. He is lucky to be where he is, because fan bases are an impatient lot (Did you know that? B) :P )

    My initial explanantion was kind of clumsy.

  9. #19
    dfosterf's Avatar
    dfosterf is offline Coach
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    987

    Re: The problems with the current CBA


  10. #20
    tastywaves's Avatar
    tastywaves is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,869

    Re: The problems with the current CBA

    Quote Originally Posted by "dfosterf" #1089817
    Looks like this thing has a long ways to go. I heard this morning that both sides have agreed to non-binding mediation. Don't expect a whole lot to come from it, but it's better than what's currently going on.

    On the rookie wage scale, we have had a lot of discussion on this site with most members agreeing that it is ridiculously high for unproven players. This mostly relates to first round picks and the top 10 or so of that.

    However, if they do significantly decrease the rookie pay, I would guess that the players will push for shorter term contracts. Say 3 years vs. the current 6-7 years. This will change the dynamics as well for creating franchise players for a club.

    Point is, many of these rookie contracts that are given today turn out to be a pretty good deal for the clubs. Then again, some are a colossal bust.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Vikings Current Roster
    By marstc09 in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 282
    Last Post: 09-09-2009, 11:59 PM
  2. Your current wallpaper
    By El Vikingo in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 09-27-2008, 10:12 PM
  3. Current underrated Vikes
    By StillPurple in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 08-24-2008, 05:37 PM
  4. Current 08 Vikings
    By MindFreak in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 01-11-2008, 12:01 PM
  5. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 10-06-2006, 05:50 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •