Skip to content

Packers’ net income falls 41 percent

cd0ymzcznguwzdbhnduynddiytjhm2yyzthlmtjjotqwyyznpwzhotnimgjkymi3ywu0nwzhowy5ntexzmjizda1oti4 AP

The Packers’ net income dipped 41.3 percent in the last fiscal year, according to figures disclosed by the club on Thursday.

According to the club’s website, the team’s net income was $25.3 million, compared to $43.1 million over the same 12-month period a year earlier. (Per the Milwaukee Business Journal, the club’s last fiscal year ended on March 31, 2014.)

This is the first time net income for Green Bay has dipped under $40 million in a fiscal year since 2011. Net income was $42.7 million in 2012.

Spending on players increased by $35 million in fiscal 2013-14, per Packers.com. The club signed quarterback Aaron Rodgers, outside linebacker Clay Matthews and cornerback Sam Shields to new deals in the last fiscal year, with all three players receiving at least $12.5 million in signing bonuses.

Overall, the Packers reported $324.1 million in revenue in the last fiscal year, according to the club’s site. That’s an increase of about $16 million, or 5.2 percent, over the fiscal year ending in March 2013.

More than 350,000 people own shares of the Packers, according to the club.

Permalink 115 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Green Bay Packers, Home, Rumor Mill
115 Responses to “Packers’ net income falls 41 percent”
  1. andreweac says: Jul 10, 2014 11:05 PM

    Just imagine the profits if they also got a $1.5 billion subsidy from some corrupt local politician!

  2. pats1944 says: Jul 10, 2014 11:06 PM

    you know the vikings trolls will be out on this one. But you guys need to stop feeding and learn to love the trolls. If you can do that you will end up laughing at pftpoets posts everytime

  3. thestrategyexpert says: Jul 10, 2014 11:07 PM

    These players are taking all the money and leaving nothing left for everybody else! They should stop complaining about Roger Goodell for anything, otherwise maybe one day somebody new steps in as Commissioner and says enough is enough with the outrageous guaranteed portions of these contracts!

    How much money did the Packers spend on players that didn’t produce to a level that matched their pay rate? It’s trickier to grow profits when you have a huge chunk going down the drain or being utilized inefficiently.

  4. rosstuckershair says: Jul 10, 2014 11:09 PM

    Two or three more years of salary cap increases and the Packers will be underwater.

    It looks like it is time to print some more Packer stock.

  5. lennydpocketqb says: Jul 10, 2014 11:11 PM

    Where do they report these numbers? Why are they public?

  6. winorlose6burgh says: Jul 10, 2014 11:12 PM

    It’s because theses so called loyal fans wasn’t showing up when Rodgers got hurt nobody is loyal as the steelers fan base

  7. andrewluck12 says: Jul 10, 2014 11:16 PM

    Better star selling more ‘stock’

  8. snaponrules says: Jul 10, 2014 11:16 PM

    Time to sell more worthless “stock” to dimwitts.

  9. mikeyhigs says: Jul 10, 2014 11:21 PM

    Good. Now I can buy me some of those phony stocks at pennies on the dollar

  10. jbones77 says: Jul 10, 2014 11:23 PM

    Time to sell some more “stock”.

  11. kevinsterne says: Jul 10, 2014 11:24 PM

    They’re still in the black; so what’s the problem?

  12. dethsupport says: Jul 10, 2014 11:29 PM

    Penny stock fire sale!!!

  13. tangysizzl says: Jul 10, 2014 11:32 PM

    Can’t wait till pftpoet or ariani tell us this is evidence of the Packers downfall…silly wabbits.

  14. mcnasty1 says: Jul 10, 2014 11:42 PM

    maybe if the “fans” knew they had a chance against SF and they didnt have to scramble to avoid a blackout….then they wouldnt be in this predicament.

  15. drwbrsdmndsnxplntn says: Jul 10, 2014 11:46 PM

    Rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb.

  16. mediasloppy says: Jul 10, 2014 11:47 PM

    This is why I questioned in another post, how can the Packers afford player salaries when the cap gets bigger every year. This is where an owner has to shell out his own money.

  17. banky74 says: Jul 10, 2014 11:54 PM

    Just sell more “stock”. The suckers over there need something to hang on the wall next to paintings of dogs playing poker.

  18. themeccalambeaufield says: Jul 11, 2014 12:04 AM

    I wish if things like this are going to be posted include the whole article.They also had purchased land, businesses, and homes surrounding the stadium for the new Titletown entertainment district as well as paying for the south end zone seating. Once completed it will be the largest complex in the NFL.

  19. kd75 says: Jul 11, 2014 12:11 AM

    Wahhhh! I only made $25 million last year.

  20. vprkilr says: Jul 11, 2014 12:23 AM

    Looks like its time for the Packers to sell more “valuable” stock!!!!!

    hahahahaha

  21. GenXJay says: Jul 11, 2014 12:28 AM

    you forgot TT needs a payday too.
    & how much is the yoga instructor getting?

  22. whatthehellisgoingonoutthere says: Jul 11, 2014 12:29 AM

    Not surprising at all given that they handed out some of the biggest contracts in team history with massive signing bonuses in 2013. Net income should bounce back dramatically in 2014 since nobody will be getting close to those kind of contracts this year.

  23. verykindguy says: Jul 11, 2014 12:34 AM

    Hopefully all this money spent will translate into winning games and getting us back to the Super Bowl, then people won’t worry about the income

  24. calvinhobbes5000 says: Jul 11, 2014 12:42 AM

    So they made more money, but spent more on players.

  25. banlarson says: Jul 11, 2014 12:43 AM

    Time to sell more worthless paper for bonehead fans to buy with credit cards.

  26. revelation123 says: Jul 11, 2014 12:45 AM

    So revenue increased, but net income was reduced due to signing 3 of their best players?

    In other news, Johnny Manziel was photographed walking on a sidewalk.

  27. billybone says: Jul 11, 2014 12:54 AM

    Didn’t they just make some stadium improvements that might have affected the outcome. Obviously depending on who (team, tax payers) financed the upgrades. Did that affect their net or was that for a different year? If the stadium upgrades had no effect, it’s crazy to think the organization pocketed just a shy more than Rogers yearly salary.

    GB is a bit different since they are publicly owned but I doubt this reflects the other teams net profit or else all the other owners wouldn’t be so afraid to open their books.

  28. silverandblack052099 says: Jul 11, 2014 12:55 AM

    They simply spent more money last year.

    Move along folks, nothing to see here.

  29. rg3sus says: Jul 11, 2014 12:59 AM

    Do the shareholders actually keep profits? Prior to the “stock” being issued, who got the profits? I assume things like stadium upkeep is already included in the difference between gross and net.

  30. Aaron Rodgers Has Tiny Hands says: Jul 11, 2014 1:00 AM

    That’s because they couldn’t sell out their playoff game.

  31. dino2997 says: Jul 11, 2014 1:01 AM

    Better sell some more worthless stock to the ignorant fan base. A 41 percent drop in net income is unacceptable.

  32. andygraham says: Jul 11, 2014 1:06 AM

    I feel like paragraph four explains paragraph one.

  33. ragnarthemagnificent says: Jul 11, 2014 1:11 AM

    It’s a good thing: “Green Bay Packers Inc., has been a publicly owned, nonprofit corporation since Aug. 18, 1923″ So, they don’t really needs profits, or defense for 2014.

  34. packerfansareinbred says: Jul 11, 2014 1:23 AM

    The stench from Green Bay alone is enough to drive any investor away.

  35. guitarfreak21 says: Jul 11, 2014 1:28 AM

    LOL! Time to water down packer stock with more 0% ownership bogus share sales :D #LAWLWAYS

  36. tommiepickles says: Jul 11, 2014 1:43 AM

    Fiscal

  37. greatmiamisportsmind says: Jul 11, 2014 1:48 AM

    Yup, time to move them from that barren waste land that is Wisconsin. I hear Winnipeg calling

  38. abreathofsanity says: Jul 11, 2014 2:10 AM

    That’s not gouda.

  39. coreyn23 says: Jul 11, 2014 2:17 AM

    Time to sell some more stock!!!

  40. kd75 says: Jul 11, 2014 2:20 AM

    Hey Packers, and all of those “shareholders” If you want to make an extra $20 million next year, cut Aaron Rodgers.

    Yea, didn’t think so…

  41. squeakywheeler says: Jul 11, 2014 2:39 AM

    Have to pay sooner or later.

  42. sgl24pack says: Jul 11, 2014 3:33 AM

    The fine city of Green Bay and the franchise are going to be juuuuust fine. Especially after another Super Bowl this year. Stay healthy men.

  43. boomboombrown says: Jul 11, 2014 5:10 AM

    The downward spiral continues! Make them sell!

  44. pauliewalnutsthe2nd says: Jul 11, 2014 5:20 AM

    Wow, guess it just goes to show Packer fans are fair weather as long as their QB is healthy.

  45. bobnelsonjr says: Jul 11, 2014 5:56 AM

    Real stock companies have to release real annual reports. The nice thing about the Green Bay Packers stock is that all profits (by agreement) are reinvested into the corporation. The stockholders want to see the corporation prosper and have cash reserves.

    The Packers have historically had the lowest level and lowest percentage of debt in the NFL. Most of the small debt is contractual and cannot be paid off early.

    Now that most of the renovations and construction is concluding expenses should be down and more revenue realized.

    The stockholders should be happy at the annual meeting coming up later this month.

    The NFL’s smallest city with the largest NFL fanbase is doing well.

  46. handsofsteelhartofstone says: Jul 11, 2014 6:02 AM

    This franchise is a joke.

  47. omniscientmoi says: Jul 11, 2014 6:34 AM

    An infusion of money is needed. Time for another issue of worthless stock to the gullible fanbase.

  48. dabears2485 says: Jul 11, 2014 6:44 AM

    “Own shares”…..that like saying I “own” the bear at the zoo because I donated $200 to the “I like bears” fund.

  49. youngs79 says: Jul 11, 2014 7:10 AM

    Who would want to go to that hick town? It is not surprising, they back into the playoffs last year and had to have a local bank and the local Fox affiliate buy their tickets up to avoid a blackout.

  50. gtodriver says: Jul 11, 2014 7:23 AM

    lennydpocketqb says:

    Where do they report these numbers? Why are they public?
    ___________

    At the stockholders meetings. It’s a publically held entity – and full disclosure is mandated by law.

    All those fake stock owners who claim that they have something to say about how the team is being run should pool their votes and throw the board of directors out.

    Only problem is – if you pooled all the votes of the fake stock owners together (there are about 370,000 fake shares of stock purchased in 1997 and 2011) – you wouldn’t have enough votes to overturn the desires of the top 2 Packer real stock owners (200,000 shares is the maximum that can be held by one person).

    There are over 4,700,000 shares of Packer stock. So the fake stock owners represent less than 1% of the stock.

  51. officialgame says: Jul 11, 2014 7:28 AM

    They numbers are public because the Packers are a publicly traded corporation while every other NFL team is privately held.

  52. chris1cat says: Jul 11, 2014 7:29 AM

    Bottoms falling out GreenBay!
    What’s the fanbase going to do when AR retires?
    That’s right, it comes back again full circle.
    Here come the two decades wasted dismal 70’s and 80’s again!

  53. stopthemadness101 says: Jul 11, 2014 7:32 AM

    Every team should be owned by their fans.

  54. hodag54501 says: Jul 11, 2014 7:46 AM

    Mike Wilkening correctly did not use the word “profit” for the Packers reserves, since the Packers corporation is organized as a not-for-profit entity. However, the ever-astute reporters for the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, once again, called them “profits”, which prompted this response from me..

    For perhaps 15 years here and elsewhere I’ve tried to make the point that NON-PROFIT organizations don’t have PROFITS! On one website one guy called me names because he said there are no teams in the NFL that aren’t for profit. He refused to believe it after I showed him numerous examples of the status. Why can’t the reporters at the J-S understand it? They are RESERVES, not profits, as others above have said. To figure it out, the PROFITS go into Jerry Jones’ privately-owned pocket, while RESERVES go back into the publically-owned team. When they call them profits, it’s like saying a rugby ball is the same as an NFL football because they both look something alike.

  55. hodag54501 says: Jul 11, 2014 7:49 AM

    “This franchise is a joke.”

    Response: the franchise you follow is not one of the original teams in the NFL, with a global fan base, and has 13 NFL titles, including four Super Bowl victories.
    The joke is on you.

  56. laxer37 says: Jul 11, 2014 7:51 AM

    Sounds like it’s time to scam fans into buying more of their worthless “ownership” shares.

  57. uwsptke says: Jul 11, 2014 7:57 AM

    There are lots of people embarrassing themselves in the comments section by not understanding how financial statements work. Revenues are UP – they don’t need to “print more fake stock” and ticket sales are obviously not a problem. It says right in the article that they paid out large signing bonuses this past fiscal year to Rodgers, Matthews and Shields. Salary cap accounting allows a team to amortize bonuses over the length if the contract, but in financial reporting you must report the entire expense when it’s paid out. More expenses in player salary (which only happens with large bonus payouts) will lead to a lower profit that year. It’s really quite simple.

    Meanwhile, they’ve just completed another major renovation (without taxpayer help) and continue to develop the stadium district to further help their bottom line.

  58. laxer37 says: Jul 11, 2014 7:59 AM

    stopthemadness101 says:

    Every team should be owned by their fans.

    ——————–

    They are, through ticket purchases, TV package revenue, and merchandise sales. The Packers are just the only ones selling a worthless piece of paper to to their fans as part of it.

  59. whatjusthapped says: Jul 11, 2014 8:03 AM

    The Packers are the only franchise in the NFL that must report these numbers because they are the only publicly owned franchise.

    Most nitwits (aka Viking trolls) don’t have a basic understanding of accounting principles so the difference between revenue, income and net income is lost on them. In fact, a lot of things are lost on them including what a bust QB looks like.

  60. bdfun400 says: Jul 11, 2014 8:11 AM

    didnt they spend a good chunk of money on the expansion?

  61. purpleppleeaters says: Jul 11, 2014 8:16 AM

    The Packer era is on the downward side of the hill. Apparently, even the Packer faithful realize this.

  62. teal379 says: Jul 11, 2014 8:24 AM

    The lack of financial acumen shown by most of the trolls and posters on this article explains why we have so many “payday loan store” advertisements on TV.

  63. stellarperformance says: Jul 11, 2014 8:35 AM

    No other team in the league would be comfortable sharing their financials. This is one well-managed team, and if they can stay on the field, nothing is going to stop them this year. The haters know this, so they fight back with all the ammunition they have in the long-storied history of a proud Viking history……insults and put-downs. That’s it.

  64. The Almighty Cabbage says: Jul 11, 2014 8:38 AM

    Yes, they spent a ton on the stadium.

    I’m amazed at the fact that I see many of the same posters on these articles day after day after day and they still cannot understand something as simple as the cap.

    They giggled gleefully about the contracts signed last year, predicting doom and gloom, smugly assured that GB was going to cripple their cap in the future; only to find out that the Pack was smart enough to front-load all those deals because (a) they had the reserves to do so and (b) to ensure that those deals were, are, and will continue to be extremely cap-friendly over all.

    Like with anything else, a huge down payment equals much smaller payments for the life of the contract. Smart business. Buy when you have the money.

  65. angrylionsfan says: Jul 11, 2014 8:43 AM

    I’m sure the “share holders” will be mad that they are losing money on their “stock”.

  66. aa1829 says: Jul 11, 2014 8:45 AM

    If I am not mistaken, if the Packers are sold, all the money goes to the Alonzo Stagg VFW post, not some billionaires bank account. Can anyone confirm that? Now spend the rest of that money on Nelson, Cobb, and whoever steps up their game this year!

  67. ariani1985 says: Jul 11, 2014 8:47 AM

    More fake stock should fix this! Lol!

  68. whatthehellisgoingonoutthere says: Jul 11, 2014 8:49 AM

    Packer stock is hardly worth it. It pays huge dividends in the form of 13 championships…most in the NFL. That is a serious ROI!

  69. whatthehellisgoingonoutthere says: Jul 11, 2014 8:51 AM

    Hearing a Viking fan talking about a team being on the downside of the hill with an elite QB in the prime of his career is typical mentality of Queen’s fans. Meanwhile, they trot out garbage like Ponder, Cassel and Bustwater and they are somehow on the upswing. SKOLOLOL!

  70. joeknowsnada says: Jul 11, 2014 8:55 AM

    Yep, revenues up, bonuses expensed, plans proceeding. Packers doing well. Was not aware they are structured as a non-profit, so thanks for the info. The beauty of all this, is, unlike major (and minor) corporations, who can’t hazard a down quarter or year (down, as in ” we made a lot of money, just not as much as last quarter or last year”), the Packers have the “luxury” of doing what’s best for the club, regardless of whether they take a “hit” to reserves/profits in a given year, vs. previous years. It’s actually the way ALL businesses should be run/viewed – if you spend more “capital” in a given year, to improve the long-term prospects for the entity, resulting in more expense and less reserves/profits in the present or the near-future, you should not be penalized for it, in the stock price, until it’s proven that your plans bore lousy or bad results. You should not have to do accounting “slight-of-hand” to hide or obscure the facts from the shareholders and the investing public. You should be rewarded for your foresight, guts and determination.

  71. tonyc920 says: Jul 11, 2014 8:59 AM

    UMMMMMM, With the Packers sharing thier numbers which they have to as a publcly owned entity, it’s usually a guideline to all other NFL teams finances. In fact the Packers are usually in the top 10 teams for revenue other than TV revenue sharing. I’ll doubt the Vikings made $25 million unless they sold more jerseys, or have more restaurants and shops at the stadium. Ohhhh, that’s right . You don’t have a stadium.

  72. bassplucker says: Jul 11, 2014 9:08 AM

    Aaron Rodgers goes out for half a season and not only does the team tank on the field, but so does the bottom line.

    Puts a whole new light on that MVP debate, doesn’t it?

  73. stellarperformance says: Jul 11, 2014 9:18 AM

    Aaron Rodgers goes out for half a season and a rookie takes over, dominates stacked fronts, and leads the team to the third division crown in a row.

    And the team did not lose any money last year. They are in the black. Revenue is down AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE PREVIOUS FISCAL YEAR!

    Dope.

  74. norwegianwud says: Jul 11, 2014 9:25 AM

    Pretty sure there is more money than shows on “paper”. GB is a very successful franchise, obviously. I’m a Vikings fan but have no animosity toward any team. It’s a money making league and I don’t think even the weakest markets are in the red when they count it up. They could all likely pay out the whole deal with concessions, parking, and licensing… let alone tickets in half empty stadiums.

  75. nflpoker says: Jul 11, 2014 9:29 AM

    moldy cheese

  76. whatthehellisgoingonoutthere says: Jul 11, 2014 9:36 AM

    The Packers without their starting QB for half the season “tank” by winning the division and going to the playoffs again. I know 3 other teams that wishd they could tank so badly.

  77. whatthehellisgoingonoutthere says: Jul 11, 2014 9:39 AM

    It is truly amazing how many people here are financial morons. Revenue is actually higher than it was the previous year.

    The difference is that they had a spike in expenses because they front loaded some big contracts and paid large bonuses so those players don’t have huge cap hits in the later years. That’s just smart business and why the Packers are never in cap hell like teams such as the Lions.

  78. ariani1985 says: Jul 11, 2014 9:47 AM

    ship this rancid roster of a team to Canada, at least they can figure out how to run this garbage team to make a profit….

  79. The Almighty Cabbage says: Jul 11, 2014 10:00 AM

    So Ariani, Poet, Spielman, and the other 37 names that you use…. will you be around when the Vikings are clearly in the tank by week 3, or will you just create 40 new aliases?

  80. whatthehellisgoingonoutthere says: Jul 11, 2014 10:22 AM

    If it weren’t for teams like the Packers who are in the Top 1/3 of NFL revenue generating teams, the Vikings who were 31st in the NFL in revenue would have to fold up shop since they couldn’t collect their subsidies to stay afloat.

    In the NFL the top half of the teams in revenue have cut the bottom half a check, so a team in a little town of 100,000 people is actually paying to keep the Vikings from going bankrupt. Anyone know the size difference between Minneapolis and Green Bay? Seems like it would be the other way around, but that’s what happens when you have a fairweather fanbase and a history of winning nothing.

  81. pkrlvr says: Jul 11, 2014 10:23 AM

    Some really dumb comments on here. We know the stock is useless….everyone who bought it knew. We did it for reasons you viking fans would never understand. And profits were down because expenses were up do to contracts and massive upgrades to lambeau. But keep trolling and please don’t ever miss an opportunity to slam our team and let us know how truly jealous you are.

  82. sonofad says: Jul 11, 2014 11:02 AM

    Revenues are increasing beautifully for the most successful team in the NFL.

  83. purpleguy says: Jul 11, 2014 11:16 AM

    $23M net income after all those bonuses is still pretty dang good. Whether you are a fan of an opposing team or not, you have to admit that the Packer’s organization is one of the more profitable NFL organizations.

  84. rho1953 says: Jul 11, 2014 11:29 AM

    It is because of the contract extensions they signed last year. They extended Rodgers and some others. They are fine and dandy, ESPN ranks them second in their future power ratings. They are positioned to be a powerhouse for the next five years. The Vikings are positioned to be doormats for the next five years, which is their default setting anyway.

  85. btv77 says: Jul 11, 2014 11:30 AM

    That’s it, keep posting those creative comments about worthless stock. Fact is, packer fans are well aware the stock is worthless. They buy the stock because they are happy to support the team. We would rather voluntarily buy stock every 5-8 years instead of having to buy PSLs or pay top dollaer for tickets and consessions.

  86. axespray says: Jul 11, 2014 11:30 AM

    The “stocks” are an investment to keep an NFL franchise in the town of Green Bay.

    An NFL franchise hosting home games tends to increase tourism – which increases the local income for small businesses – without the Packers in town, the local economy would probably decrease significantly – so yeah, “Worthless” stock.

  87. deephere54 says: Jul 11, 2014 11:41 AM

    norwegianwud & purpleguy,
    thank you for adding some class to this thread.
    good luck to your team in the up-coming season.

  88. themeccalambeaufield says: Jul 11, 2014 11:41 AM

    Maybe if the complete article was published there would be a clearer picture. The Packers used a lot of money buying businesses, homes, to prepare for the entertainment complex which will feature stores, restaurants, interactive things for kids, etc. It will be the largest complex in the NFL when completed.

  89. themeccalambeaufield says: Jul 11, 2014 11:45 AM

    The Packers are one of the teams that has to support downtrodden, no money making teams like the queens with revenue sharing. You should be down on your knees thanking this little franchise for helping you to overpay players like Jennings, Peterson and Griffen who help get you to last place finishes. There is not one factual thing that you have that would convince anyone why your franchise should even exist in the NFL.

  90. vikingspride says: Jul 11, 2014 12:00 PM

    I’m sure that the year to year income of every other team is no different….. the only difference is that you can see the income for the Packers.

  91. Aaron Rodgers Has Tiny Hands says: Jul 11, 2014 12:02 PM

    Hey, is it too late to get in on that “they should sell more fake stock” thing? Is that bit still fresh?

  92. whatthehellisgoingonoutthere says: Jul 11, 2014 12:11 PM

    The NFL puts a list out of teams and ranked by revenue. The Vikings have been in the 30’s for the last 5-10 years now and the Packers have been in the Top 1/3 of the league. Sorry Viking pride, but your team is a bottom feeder that gets charity from well run teams, even one’s that are in towns that are the size of a Minneapolis suburb.

  93. gearsofwarking1985 says: Jul 11, 2014 12:14 PM

    You just know Vikings fans are going to try to bash the Packers, even though they have never won a Super Bowl and they always take GB leftover players… The Minnesota Vikings now have a QB with the last name “Bridge Water” … What, was he born on a Bridge over some water? Frankly, it sounds made up…

    LOL The Vikings will never win a Super Bowl, at least not for the next 25 years

  94. stellarperformance says: Jul 11, 2014 12:15 PM

    Purchase some hand-strengthening squeezie thingies for Bridgewater instead. That is one way you can show your support. And he’ll appreciate it, because he’ll need it.

    Let us know how that works out for you.

  95. whatthehellisgoingonoutthere says: Jul 11, 2014 12:15 PM

    Packers fans are more than happy to dole out a couple of hundred bucks for “fake stock”. It’s a small price to pay to not have an owner to screw things up by meddling in team affairs with their alternate agenda’s. And it can never be held hostage by an owner who threatens to move the team. Doesn’t get any better than that! And we haven’t even gotten to the huge dividends that the stock has paid out in the form of 13 championships, most in the NFL. That’s a great return on investment!

    Just look at how horrible the Vikings ownership has been over it’s history. It was a disaster before Red McCombs made it a disaster and has been a disaster with the Wilf’s. They got completely hoodwinked by Childress because they know nothing about the game. Don’t have to worry about that in Green Bay.

  96. dethsupport says: Jul 11, 2014 12:21 PM

    Who’s backing up old man Rodgers? Is it still noodle arm Flynn?

  97. familyjoool says: Jul 11, 2014 12:24 PM

    It seems many people commenting (including the articles writer) do not understand how a not-for-profit company works. The revenue INCREASED, the overhead also increased, 25$ million is reserve money which was less than last year because of the first two factors. GreenBay must make their revenue/costs numbers public every year, because they are publicly owned. Nothing new here. Team is in good shape. Both on and off the field.

  98. whatthehellisgoingonoutthere says: Jul 11, 2014 1:01 PM

    It’s possible that Flynn is the backup or Scott Tolzien. Unless the Vikings finally get a grip on their QB situation and start tampering with Flynn so they can upgrade their starting quarterback.

  99. tangysizzl says: Jul 11, 2014 1:08 PM

    Ok say I give 250 dollars to charity, what do I get in return? Probably a worthless piece of paper right and maybe a good feeling inside.

    That’s what the purchase of Packers stock amounts to, giving to charity because ultimately all the reserves (profits) eventually go to charity if/when the Packers team is sold.

    I know that’s hard for most people to understand but considering the average intelligence of most PFT commentors, that’s not at all surprising.

  100. themeccalambeaufield says: Jul 11, 2014 1:13 PM

    dethsupport says:
    Jul 11, 2014 12:21 PM

    Who’s backing up old man Rodgers? Is it still noodle arm Flynn?

    Who is that starting for the queens Doh! no one knows. Could it be noodle arm Ponder, How about journeyman Cassell who fleeced the team for 10 mil., or could it be baby hands bilgewater who had a complete meltdown under his first NFL pressure situation? Even according to Turner last week he doesn’t know. Just the fact Ponder is in the mix speaks volumes!

  101. ctlee7 says: Jul 11, 2014 1:19 PM

    What is funny is PFT stating that the Vikings are 100x the franchise the packers are. Now in reality, ranking franchises is as ridiculous as comparing a quarterback to a tight-end in the NFL top 100. However, if you take a look at the number of world championships, superbowls, recent division championships, the number of quarterbacks in the last 20 years ….. stating that the Vikings is 100x the Packers is a statement born in emotion – not intelligence, logic or any other state of mind that would not be deemed abby-normal.

  102. ctlee7 says: Jul 11, 2014 1:26 PM

    Wow – I just read more comments – are people that stupid? The stockholders don’t care about boosting revenue, they care about a well managed and successful team. Contrary to all other teams that have owners. Wow – I would understand if the Vikings fans were like 12 or something. I hope for their sake they are not educated adults.

  103. ariani1985 says: Jul 11, 2014 1:41 PM

    with over 100 million handed out to 1st round busts and aging dinosours its easy to see why this feeble little franchise is going broke!!!

  104. trapshoot says: Jul 11, 2014 1:47 PM

    Stockholders could careless if they make millions. They want a good team, nothing else.

  105. linemanguy74 says: Jul 11, 2014 2:07 PM

    HERE WE COME LA

  106. whatthehellisgoingonoutthere says: Jul 11, 2014 2:27 PM

    How on earth would someone be stupid enough to say here we come LA when anyone with a brain knows that the team can never move from Green Bay because it is written into the bylaws. Not to mention the fact that they have a ton of money in reserves and are profitable. Their net income is down because they had some big contracts with signing bonuses and have spent a lot of money on creating more revenue in the future by buying up the land around the stadium for expansion of other businesses they will make money off of.

  107. puntonfirstdown says: Jul 11, 2014 4:01 PM

    The money raised by stock sale(s) cannot be used in any way towards player salaries or signing bonuses. All stock sale income must be used for capital improvements only, which is how they paid for the recent stadium upgrades.

  108. frellmedead7 says: Jul 11, 2014 6:08 PM

    @winorlose6burgh: “It’s because theses so called loyal fans wasn’t showing up when Rodgers got hurt nobody is loyal as the steelers fan base”. If their overall revenue had decreased, then you might have a valid point. However, their overall revenue increased five percent. What decreased was their net income, because of an additional $35M they spent on paying players, namely new contracts for their three highest paid players: Rodgers, Matthews, and Shields.

  109. frellmedead7 says: Jul 11, 2014 6:15 PM

    Good thing the Executive VP, GM, and coach don’t run the Packers organization like a corporation. They would sacrifice the team and run it into the ground in the interest of net revenue and stock prices.

  110. chukychez1 says: Jul 12, 2014 12:36 AM

    It’s obvious, the loser part of the NFC-North, Vikes & Bears. Take there frustration out on the Pack, by trolling the Packer forum. They will be paying fans to come to see their crummy teams, Pathetic!

  111. kevjones75 says: Jul 12, 2014 11:19 AM

    The Packers are the only team in professional sports that have to disclose their financials every year.

  112. cheeseisfattening says: Jul 12, 2014 5:44 PM

    (Per the Milwaukee Business Journal, the club’s last fiscal year ended on March 31, 2014.)

    Only in Green Bay does a company’s fiscal year end on some random date. There has to be a nefarious reason the Packer to choose to end their fiscal year on this date. Or its just plain stupidity.

  113. packh8er says: Jul 15, 2014 8:37 AM

    Oh no, what will all the fake stock holders do??

  114. just4given says: Jul 15, 2014 7:33 PM

    Winorloseburg, enlighten us Packer fans. Tell us when the last non sell-out at Lambeau Field was.

  115. haraldsigurdson says: Jul 17, 2014 12:24 PM

    The reason they’re hurting for revenue is because the current Governor of the state has attacked and crippled the working class, which is the vast majority of the Packer fan base. Nobody has money to spare for Packer stuff because they’re paying more for their health insurance and trying to keep their pensions after the Governor and the Legislature robbed their pockets. Wisconsin is lagging badly behind most other states in the country, and is certainly experiencing more economic stagnation than their neighbors. Time for a change in leadership, Wisconsin!

Leave a Reply

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