Skip to content

Revenue up, operating profits down for the Packers

Clarence Beeks has finally spoken.

The good news for the Packers?  Total revenues reached record levels in the team’s most recently completed fiscal year, shooting to $258 million, per Richard Ryman of the Green Bay Press-Gazette.  But operating profits dropped again, falling all the way from $20.1 million to $9.8 million.

Two years ago, the Packers had an operating profit of $34 million.

That said, total profits are up a bit, from $4 million to $5.2 million.  Last year, the total profits plummeted due to investment losses resulting from the crashing of the stock market.

And here’s the key factor, as far as the team and the league will be concerned.  Player expenses increased by $22 million.  (Total expenses increased by only $20 million, because non-player expenses fell from $89 million to $87 million.)

So here’s how this will unfold over the next two weeks.  The team and the league will blame the increased expenses on a player compensation system that needs to be fixed via the next labor deal, and the NFLPA will say that the Packers’ numbers can’t be extrapolated to the rest of the league — and that if the league wants to whine about financial losses the league needs to open the books of every team before doing so.

Permalink 36 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Green Bay Packers, Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories
36 Responses to “Revenue up, operating profits down for the Packers”
  1. robert ethen says: Jul 14, 2010 12:27 PM

    Drive a stake through the left side of the chest of Undead Ted. That’ll free up a few million.

  2. twizzlystick says: Jul 14, 2010 12:31 PM

    This sounds like code for contraction.

  3. twizzlystick says: Jul 14, 2010 12:32 PM

    Is there at least enough money left for Thompson to keep not signing free agents?

  4. Jeremy says: Jul 14, 2010 12:32 PM

    Can we just get it out of the way?
    “The books are cooked! The books are cooked!”

  5. downwithdansnyder says: Jul 14, 2010 12:32 PM

    So why would the stock market losses be included in operating profits? They aren’t stock traders they are a football team. That info may come into play in their balance sheet and income statement, but shouldn’t be included in their (football) operating profits. Also if the stock market can impact their operating profits wouldn’t paying signing bonuses? Did they have more in signing bonuses last year then before? This doesn’t seem to be either complete information or enough to make any real judgments about the ongoing profit potential of their business.

  6. garylandon41 says: Jul 14, 2010 12:33 PM

    Here come the haters. I would hate to see the numbers of probably 20 of the 32 teams in the league.

  7. bigrig says: Jul 14, 2010 12:34 PM

    Who’d a thunk it?
    Packers being used by the league to show player costs need to be reigned in since they are the only team NFLPA will ever see the books from.
    No way in hell they ever get a look at Jones’ or Kraft’s books. Why would they?

  8. GBfanForever says: Jul 14, 2010 12:44 PM

    “This sounds like code for contraction. ”
    Have fun watching the LA vikings in 2012! I’d feel bad for Minnesotan sports fans but after seeing how you behave day in and day out, I don’t think you really deserve the NFL. Maybe you could get into arena league football or the CFL even. Cheers!

  9. Jeremy says: Jul 14, 2010 12:46 PM

    Keep in mind the Packers have been in the top half in terms of revenue the last several years. If they are barely making ends meet, some teams are likely losing money. (if the numbers are to be believed)

  10. edgy says: Jul 14, 2010 12:47 PM

    According to Forbes, revenue was $232 mil and now it goes to $258 mil and somehow, they lost money? I bet that the report wins the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction.

  11. MACK DADDY says: Jul 14, 2010 12:48 PM

    twizzlystick says:
    July 14, 2010 12:32 PM
    Is there at least enough money left for Thompson to keep not signing free agents?
    ===================================
    twizzlystick, meet Charles Woodson (DPOY)
    Mr. woodson, meet twizzlystick (still waiting for his balls to descend)

  12. Citizen Strange says: Jul 14, 2010 12:50 PM

    Also, not a single movie in Hollywood ever makes any money.

  13. DWRinAZ says: Jul 14, 2010 12:50 PM

    This (some of the comments)shows just how little some of us know about accounting and tax law. Any income (or loss) from funds held by the corporation is obviously included in total profit or loss. The real issue here is that operating profits fell significantly as a % of revenue.
    Bottom line is that the Pack earned roughly 3.8 cents on every dollar collected. The rolling 25 year average is considered to be roughly 8.3% across all industries. Google is on the order of 29%+ I believe.
    In most private sectors sustained margins of 4% would bring calls for new management pretty quickly. The real underlying issue is the changing revenue dynamic as publically funded stadiums are largely a thing of the past and there is little margin for increase with the actual paying patron (the guy who buys the ticket).
    Bottom line is real simple, costs are climbing faster then revenue so the net is down. Anyone who thinks these are “cooked” is clueless given the penalties involved. Simply a fundemental reality most of us are facing…trickle down effects even the NFL.

  14. edgy says: Jul 14, 2010 12:51 PM

    BTW, if the Packers are that concerned about operating profit then they should cut payroll and work toward a goal of 7-9 and 8-8 because that would probably not have as much of an effect on attendance for 4 or 5 years and they could really rake in the dough.

  15. edgy says: Jul 14, 2010 1:01 PM

    # Jeremy says:
    (if the numbers are to be believed)
    ************************
    They’re not to be believed. Most of the teams that saw drops in ticket sales were also shedding payroll and that was one of the reasons why their fans were turned off. Average NFL revenue was over $230 mil and player costs did not go up as much as they said for the league as a whole. The salary cap went up but more teams went closer to the floor than they did the ceiling (Tampa shed revenue like a first class stripper).

  16. Ruvell100 says: Jul 14, 2010 1:02 PM

    “This sounds like code for contraction.”
    ————————
    I will admit, I at least get a good laugh at how unbelievably retarded you are.

  17. High Spyder says: Jul 14, 2010 1:07 PM

    My God! The Dukes are going to corner the entire frozen orange juice market!

  18. Ruvell100 says: Jul 14, 2010 1:10 PM

    Murphy about summed it up. I wouldn’t have believed it, but to realize a $9M profit on $258M is ridiculous and not even close to a good business model. And seeing as the Packers are the only team that can’t really cook the books, I’d bet 75% of the teams in the league could find a way to show a loss.
    Also, record revenue without Favre? I thought he built this organization!

  19. garylandon41 says: Jul 14, 2010 1:22 PM

    Ruvell100
    Yeah, Favre built the organization. You’re a moron like most people on here.
    On the other hand, Favre may have built the Vikings organization. If he wasn’t there last year and they had a mediocre season they’d be a lot closer to L.A.

  20. edgy says: Jul 14, 2010 1:26 PM

    # DWRinAZ says:
    Bottom line is real simple, costs are climbing faster then revenue so the net is down. Anyone who thinks these are “cooked” is clueless given the penalties involved. Simply a fundemental reality most of us are facing…trickle down effects even the NFL.
    **************************
    First of all, costs ARE NOT climbing as fast as they claim. From 2006 on, revenue went up 2.65%, 1.55%, 10.66% and 6.42% while player costs went up 7.29%, 17.48%, 3.31% and (gasp) -3.20%. Revenue went up 22.75% while player costs went up 26.04. Yes, they went up more but NOT THAT MUCH MORE (Source: Forbes).
    Second, the last report didn’t support their claims (and Forbes called them out on it) and when it finally comes out, this year’s will probably not support their claims as well. Oh and unlike the rest of the “publicly” traded companies, the Packers don’t give a rat’s ass about their shareholders report and how it affects their stock price since it can NEVER appreciate in value and pays no dividends and no one can ever accumulate enough to become the majority owner. They can show a loss to help support their claims be technically on the side of true but not show the truth.

  21. Ruvell100 says: Jul 14, 2010 1:29 PM

    garylandon41…sarcasm buddy. I’m the most die-hard Packer fan you’ll ever meet. Man….

  22. TiceWasBetter says: Jul 14, 2010 1:30 PM

    If they were able to compare concessions and parking sales with Lambeau to the Metrodome people would really understand how bad it is for Ziggy Wilf

  23. betheball says: Jul 14, 2010 1:31 PM

    As a Green Bay Packers, Inc. stockholder, I think it’s time for the NFL to address the requirement that well-run, profitable organizations like the Packers have to annually subsidize poorly run franchises like the one in Minnesota. If they can’t stand on their own, force them to move. Then, if they’re still bleeding red in a couple of years, bye bye franchise. No more wealth redistribution!

  24. PackFanNChiTown says: Jul 14, 2010 1:33 PM

    Clarence Beeks has finally spoken.
    My God! The Dukes are going to corner the entire frozen orange juice market!
    ______________________________________
    Glad you finally got away from that gorilla Clarence!
    “Seems to me the best way you hurt rich people is by turning ‘em into “po” people…”

  25. edgy says: Jul 14, 2010 2:08 PM

    BTW, here’s an interesting quote from Sports Business Journal:
    In many industries, such as the auto industry, employers seeking concessions from employees will open their books to show real losses. In the history of sports labor, leagues have historically presented sports unions with financial data when asking players to take pay cuts.

  26. Hauschild says: Jul 14, 2010 2:15 PM

    This is where life gets interesting. You have anti-capitalists such as the players’ association who basks in the freedom capitalism provides, but bashes its bearers at every turn.
    It’s real simple: The players will receive part of what the market will pay and no more. If it is the latter, the NFL will end up like Greece, Europe and soon, America – flat broke and so self-disciplined as to riot, steal, vandalize, rape and pillage.
    Take it or leave it couldn’t apply any better than it will soon.

  27. edgy says: Jul 14, 2010 2:26 PM

    # betheball says:
    As a Green Bay Packers, Inc. stockholder, I think it’s time for the NFL to address the requirement that
    *******************
    Fine, let’s divide up the TV revenue by market and let’s see how arrogant you are after the Packers drop to the bottom of the list. Let’s see if the Packers can bring in free agents like they do now or whether they’ll lose players like the Brewers, who get the share of the revenue that they “earn” from a market that is much larger than GB. Yeah, let’s just see how arrogant you are….

  28. RC IV says: Jul 14, 2010 2:47 PM

    betheball says:
    July 14, 2010 1:31 PM
    As a Green Bay Packers, Inc. stockholder,
    ================================
    That line right there stops anyone with ounce of brains from taking you seriously.
    You may as well have said, “As the owner of 3 sheets of toilet paper”.
    They are virtually one and the same thing.

  29. SoFlor Steeler says: Jul 14, 2010 3:34 PM

    Maybe I won’t go on hiatus – reading these responses is affirmation that the average IQ of Florio’s followers in below 70….
    Seldom does one get to see so much stupid shit in such a nice concise space.
    Here are some points to ponder…
    1. Packers sell out – and barely make a profit – what do you think the income statement looks like for Jacksonville with 40% of it’s seats not sold for the year?
    2. Gone unsaid in this article is the fact that several teams are planning on improving their bottom line by going under last years salary FLOOR -the Rams – Bengals – Jags – Bucs to name just a few.
    3. The league faces a really big underlying problem. The in stadium experience was once far better than the alternative of staying home and watching the game on TV. But with HD and 3D and things like Sunday Ticket one can enjoy a great experience and avoid $7+ beer – $20 parking and such.

  30. edgy says: Jul 14, 2010 4:55 PM

    SoFlor Steeler says:
    Maybe I won’t go on hiatus – reading these responses is affirmation that the average IQ of Florio’s followers in below 70….
    ***************************
    I think that you’re part of that group.
    1. The Packers made a bigger profit that you think. Their 2009 “profit” was diminished by OTHER THAN NFL revenue and was PAPER losses and once their 2010 sheet hits the streets, you’re going to see that it’s the same for 2010.
    2. Gone unsaid is those teams were at the bottom of the list LAST YEAR. Tampa and St. Louis were at the bottom last year when they dumped all their high priced talent and did the same this year.
    3. You hit something on the nail: the IN-STADIUM FEES: concessions and parking and tickets. Look at the Cowboys. Last year they opened up a new stadium that is bought and paid for and yet, concessions and parking went up AND ticket prices went from an average of $86 to $159 and that’s NOT counting premium seating and Cowboys payroll didn’t go up last year. In luxury boxes and ticket revenue ALONE, Jerry took in over $200 million for the preseason and regular season and that doesn’t count what he got when he jacked up the prices for the playoff game that drew 92,000+ (12,000+ cattle pen customers who more than likely paid more than the $29 regular season price).
    Now, I’m not saying that it’s great for everyone but most of the teams are doing better than what you think and the ones at the bottom of the revenue stream put themselves there by shedding payroll and turning the fans off. STILL, they ALL made profit.
    There’s a big difference between paper losses and real losses and until the NFL opens up its books, all your going to see are the PAPER losses of the Packers to speculate about what the rest of the league is enduring. The problem ISN’T the players, it’s the Jerry Jones of the NFL, who don’t want to share their wealth with the rest of the league. If Rozelle were still around, Jones and his followers wouldn’t have been able to screw the “poorer” teams out of revenue but Taglibum and the Golden Weasel have let them take more and more away and soon you’re going to have a MLB-like atmosphere and it will be because of the owners and NOT the players.

  31. SoCal says: Jul 14, 2010 9:05 PM

    “There’s a big difference between paper losses and real losses and until the NFL opens up its books, all your going to see are the PAPER losses of the Packers to speculate about what the rest of the league is enduring. ”
    *******************************************
    “But operating profits dropped again, falling all the way from $20.1 million to $9.8 million.” Here are your non-paper “losses”.

  32. edgy says: Jul 14, 2010 10:10 PM

    SoCal says: July 14, 2010 9:05 PM
    “But operating profits dropped again, falling all the way from $20.1 million to $9.8 million.” Here are your non-paper “losses”.
    ************************
    I guess you missed the entire conversation where the 2009 losses were attributed to a train wreck from their investment portfolio, which was subtracted from their revenue to produce a “paper” loss because it wasn’t a real loss from NFL revenue and the same thing will show this year ONCE the report is released. You can believe all you want but there wasn’t any big loss again this year as there wasn’t one last year when operating income supposedly dropped by $14 million.

  33. SpartaChris says: Jul 15, 2010 11:22 AM

    Edgy, you have it wrong-
    Their operating income last year was $20M. Regardless of any investment losses, it was $20M.
    This year it was $9.8M, or 51% less than last year.
    Simple math.

  34. edgy says: Jul 15, 2010 12:56 PM

    SpartaChris says:
    Edgy, you have it wrong-
    ********************
    Also, let’s not forget Wiley Coyote, the price of going from town to town went up last year. Where did the Packers put that on their statement – player costs or other costs? Now, other costs went down so either they fired a lot of people in the front office to offset rising fuel costs or they hide them with player costs. Should the players be held responsible for rising NECESSARY costs that they have no control over?

  35. SpartaChris says: Jul 15, 2010 5:17 PM

    None of what you said matters or changes anything. The facts are they took in 51% less this year than they did last year. That’s it, black and white, plain and simple. Don’t get any easier than that.

  36. edgy says: Jul 15, 2010 7:18 PM

    SpartaChris says:
    None of what you said matters or changes anything. The facts are they took in 51% less this year than they did last year.
    *******************
    You run around and talk about your so-called business genius and yet you don’t know a GD thing about a 10k and how you can make the thing say whatever you want. In a previous example that was never released here, I pointed out that one of the guys at a company that I worked at and the accountant stole $75,000 from the company and to keep investors from panicking, they put it down in the 10k as a “one-time charge” and the shareholders just accepted it and the stock price didn’t take a hit.
    Forbes called them out on their “creative” accounting last year when they showed a drop from $34 mil to $20 and they will do so this year when they put the statement out there for them to look at and laugh like they did (when they wrote off NON-FOOTBALL RELATED LOSSES, which had NOTHING to do with the players).

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!