Outshined Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 I am having trouble finding a link to this , but there are some more not mentioned, such as the Falcons have the lowest revenue and the Packers are considered a "high Revenue" team. 1356572[/snapback] I read an article where that info is not released. Media and other people just speculate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PantherDave Posted March 8, 2006 Author Share Posted March 8, 2006 Where the Hell is Vet???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PantherDave Posted March 8, 2006 Author Share Posted March 8, 2006 I read an article where that info is not released. Media and other people just speculate. 1356584[/snapback] Now, that I doubt very seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 Now, that I doubt very seriously. 1356588[/snapback] Actually I think he's right. NFL owners are very hush hush about total revenues. They don't want the NFLPA having that kind of info. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 NFL Players Association Executive Director Gene Upshaw warned owners in Detroit last October that eight franchises were gaining an unfair competitive advantage because of their revenue growth. He said the union intended to make revenue sharing a major issue in negotiations over a new labor agreement. Although Upshaw did not name the teams, they are widely assumed to be the Redskins, Cowboys, Texans, Patriots, Philadelphia Eagles, Denver Broncos, Cleveland Browns and Chicago Bears. Assuming - speculating, same thing.... http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PantherDave Posted March 8, 2006 Author Share Posted March 8, 2006 Assuming - speculating, same thing.... http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer 1356594[/snapback] Very interesting, then it's all basically smoke and mirrors, and they all make a fuggin killing, so sign the fuggin agreement already!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skippy Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 The Steelers are pretty bare bones in their advertising, I saw one ad..Coldwell Banker. They are the SUPER BOWL CHAMPS!! It's a mindset to maximize revenues, and your face(internet web site) to the fans should be a high priority. For the most past, by just glancing at team websites you tell the haves from the have nots. 1356388[/snapback] While I am certain that the Steelers fall into the "have not" group, I'm not so sure you can use something like that as a measuring stick. What I mean is that the Steelers don't always push for making the most money that they can. They sold the naming rights to Heinz Field for much less then the could have if they wanted it to be a dot com field or something like that just because they wanted it to stay with a local company. They sold personal seat licenses for a fraction of what they could have. They consistently keep their ticket prices lower than most if not all the NFL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cordo Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 (edited) NFL Team Revenues ($ mil, for 2004 season, the last season available): Link from Forbes magazine 1. Washington Redskins 287 2. New England Patriots 236 3. Dallas Cowboys 231 4. Philadelphia Eagles 216 5. Houston Texans 215 6. Cleveland Browns 203 7. Denver Broncos 202 8. Carolina Panthers 195 9. Tampa Bay Buccaneers 195 10. Chicago Bears 193 11. Baltimore Ravens 192 12. Miami Dolphins 190 13. Green Bay Packers 189 14. Tennessee Titans 186 15. Detroit Lions 186 16. Seattle Seahawks 183 17. Pittsburgh Steelers 182 18. Kansas City Chiefs 181 19. St. Louis Rams 176 20. New York Giants 175 21. New Orleans Saints 175 22. Buffalo Bills 173 23. New York Jets 172 24. Cincinnati Bengals 171 25. San Francisco 49ers 171 26. Jacksonville Jaguars 169 27. Oakland Raiders 169 28. Atlanta Falcons 168 29. Indianapolis Colts 166 30. San Diego Chargers 165 31. Minnesota Vikings 164 32. Arizona Cardinals 153 Edited March 8, 2006 by Cordo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TripleW64 Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 Personally surprised to see 6. Cleveland Browns (lower) 11. Baltimore Ravens (lower) 14. Tennessee Titans (lower) 15. Detroit Lions (lower) 25. San Francisco 49ers (Higher) 27. Raiders (higher) It seems kinda upside for those teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mggoilers Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 While I am certain that the Steelers fall into the "have not" group, I'm not so sure you can use something like that as a measuring stick. What I mean is that the Steelers don't always push for making the most money that they can. They sold the naming rights to Heinz Field for much less then the could have if they wanted it to be a dot com field or something like that just because they wanted it to stay with a local company. They sold personal seat licenses for a fraction of what they could have. They consistently keep their ticket prices lower than most if not all the NFL. 1356775[/snapback] So because Pittsburgh ( and other lower revenue franchises) want to keep it real....real cheap. I'm forced to spend more money in Dallas/Houston(other higher revenue places) for tickets and parking. Then to top it off, that money gets sent to Pittsburgh ( and other lower revenue franchises)...seems fair. I'm sure the lower revenue teams are fully aware or can be made aware of how to maximize revenue streams...I'd be interested to if these types of initiatives become part of the new agreement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 (edited) NFL Team Revenues ($ mil, for 2004 season, the last season available): Link from Forbes magazine 1. Washington Redskins 287 2. New England Patriots 236 3. Dallas Cowboys 231 4. Philadelphia Eagles 216 5. Houston Texans 215 6. Cleveland Browns 203 7. Denver Broncos 202 8. Carolina Panthers 195 9. Tampa Bay Buccaneers 195 10. Chicago Bears 193 11. Baltimore Ravens 192 12. Miami Dolphins 190 13. Green Bay Packers 189 14. Tennessee Titans 186 15. Detroit Lions 186 16. Seattle Seahawks 183 17. Pittsburgh Steelers 182 18. Kansas City Chiefs 181 19. St. Louis Rams 176 20. New York Giants 175 21. New Orleans Saints 175 22. Buffalo Bills 173 23. New York Jets 172 24. Cincinnati Bengals 171 25. San Francisco 49ers 171 26. Jacksonville Jaguars 169 27. Oakland Raiders 169 28. Atlanta Falcons 168 29. Indianapolis Colts 166 30. San Diego Chargers 165 31. Minnesota Vikings 164 32. Arizona Cardinals 153 1356790[/snapback] Nice job. Thanks. Carolina is in the top 9. Certainly higher than I thought, but still over $90 million behind first place. That top 5 is where you want to be. Only a $50 million difference between #6 and #32. Edited March 8, 2006 by CaptainHook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedroz13 Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 I am having trouble finding a link to this , but there are some more not mentioned, such as the Falcons have the lowest revenue and the Packers are considered a "high Revenue" team. 1356572[/snapback] Maybe they shouldn't have given Worthless Vick (sorry, I mean 'Michael' Vick) a 130 million dollar contract or whatever. Maybe then they could still be in the middle of the pack. He does sell spamshirts though.....I'll give him that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cordo Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 While I am certain that the Steelers fall into the "have not" group, I'm not so sure you can use something like that as a measuring stick. What I mean is that the Steelers don't always push for making the most money that they can. They sold the naming rights to Heinz Field for much less then the could have if they wanted it to be a dot com field or something like that just because they wanted it to stay with a local company. They sold personal seat licenses for a fraction of what they could have. They consistently keep their ticket prices lower than most if not all the NFL. 1356775[/snapback] I was going to respond to this last night when I posted the revenue list, but was too tired. Over the past few years, I've done a HUGH amount of research on NFL labor issues, finances, salary cap, etc. In the course of that, PSL's are one thing I've become pretty familiar with. I think there is a misconception on how they work and how the money derived from them is used. As most people know, Carolina was the first NFL team to make use of the PSL. They raised around $150 mil with their initial sale of PSLs. Alot of money -- and they could use it however they wanted to, but they also ended up with a tax bill of close to $55 mil (standard corporate tax rate of 35%). going from memory on these numbers, they may be off some, but you get the idea League and individual team tax experts saw this and got smart. Now practically all PSL arrangements are set up so that the money is collected through a public entity -- teams don't collect the money and thus, they don't pay taxes on it. Of course, there are also significant limitations on how the PSL money can be used due to this arrangement, but typically it's a pretty broad area (stadium construction, renovations, and the like). The key here is, these deals are set up so that they are capped, and excess PSL monies are targeted for specific things, and beyond that, proceeds must be refunded to the PSL purchasers. The point here is -- don't kid yourself into thinking the Steelers were doing something out of their own good graces by "selling PSLs at a fraction of what they could have". Ticket prices and naming rights ? I'll take your word on that. Of course we all like to view our teams in the best of light, but reality is that this is business first and foremost for the owners, and alot of average fans are slowly being squeezed out of buying NFL tickets. They aren't leaving money on the table in very many cases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 No PSL's for the Colts new stadium. . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSULions Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 (edited) I believe that the Panthers are in the 8 - 12 range as far as NFL teams. 1) I am pretty certain that the Panthers own their stadium as it was financed by more than 62,000 PSLs to built the place back in 1996. 2) If PSL owners don't pay for their season tickets and / or playoff tickets they lose their seats and the ownership of the seats revert back to the team. This happens on a regular basis. I bought my 2 seats back in the fall directly from the team, so they got $4,000 of my money at no cost to them. 3) The Panthers collect $300 transfer fee for every set of seats transferred by the current owner to a new owner. This can also add more $$ to the team's revenue bucket. 4) The Panthers just signed a new naming rights contract with Bank of America (also my employer) for some serious $$$ further adding to their coffers. 5) The Stadium has about 60 plus luxury suites that are leased for some big bucks to local companies (BoA, Wachovia, Duke Engery and several others). 6) They also have several minor sponsors, like Dodge, Pepsi, Bojangles, etc. that the Bank gets money from. So, to answer PD's question they are most definitely a higher revenue team. Edited March 10, 2006 by PSULions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.