• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Rick Reilly's piece on the NFL owners monetary struggles.

G

gimmewhitecastles

Golden Member
Wow I knew these guys were greedy but some of this stuff is crazy.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=6177574

Their estimated combined net worth is well over $40 billion, which is more than the GNP of 150 nations. Paul Allen, owner of the Seattle Seahawks, has a 414-foot yacht called "The Octopus" with two helicopters, two submarines, a swimming pool, a music studio and a basketball court. He also has two backup emergency yachts.
Click to expand...

Stan Kroenke, owner of the St. Louis Rams, owns four homes, four ranches and three vineyards. He once ordered his employees to destroy $3 million in wine because he didn't think it was up to his standards. His wife is a Wal-Mart heiress.
Click to expand...
 
That article is absurd. Its meant to tug at heartstrings and create emotional rage that is completely misplaced. Obviously, ESPN has a strong vested interest in the owners not locking out the players.

Yes - the owners are very rich - but most of them made their money elsewhere. The Fords, Paul Allen, Robert Kraft, Arthur Blank, come on...they didn't get rich by owning an NFL team. And despite NFL teams being worth a ton of money, giving all the owners very high net worths, they are not all profit-generating machines. Look at the Packers - they're publicly owned, so their financials are released. They only made $5 million in profit last year. That's nothing for an organization worth that much that deals in that much revenue.

Also, Reilly goes on and on about how rich they are, and how nice their possessions are. So? Should they run a billion dollar industry for little to no profit just because they're already rich? They're not allowed to try to make more money? That's absurd.

I'm not saying I agree with the owners in all aspects of this debate, or that I like Goodell's income-generating changes over the last few years. Not at all. Just that that article is slanted, biased, and shady journalism. It in no way focuses on the actual issues at hand.
 
Rick Reilly went from being one of the best sportswriters around to someone pandering for sensationalism when he moved to ESPN.

I certainly don't agree with the owners on everything either, but all of the 'evidence' or other crap Reilly brings up doesn't matter in the context of the business of running a football team. Has no relevance.

It is like me saying to my boss "Well, you've got a vacation home in Telluride, CO, a luxury yacht and travel all the time. I'm taking this afternoon off because of that."

C'mon ... get some journalistic integrity.
 
Zargon said:
Paul Allen shouldnt be on the list as hes making most of his money elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Umm that is like most every nfl owner. Besides the Rooney's and the Mara's, the owners had successful businesses elsewhere. That's how they are able to buy NFL teams in the first place.
 
I dont think Rick Reilly is attempting to write an unbiased article. I think he makes it pretty clear this is an opinionated piece. But what I do find interesting from this piece is the owners dont supply the books on their profit margins. You can't really be unbiased on this subject if you don't know specific details.

They say they're losing money. But if you were losing money and were asking for $1 billion back, wouldn't you slap some proof down on the table? The owners are more secretive with their books than KFC is with its recipe.
Click to expand...
 
Patt said:
Rick Reilly went from being one of the best sportswriters around to someone pandering for sensationalism when he moved to ESPN.

I certainly don't agree with the owners on everything either, but all of the 'evidence' or other crap Reilly brings up doesn't matter in the context of the business of running a football team. Has no relevance.

It is like me saying to my boss "Well, you've got a vacation home in Telluride, CO, a luxury yacht and travel all the time. I'm taking this afternoon off because of that."

C'mon ... get some journalistic integrity.
Click to expand...

I've told my boss that before. word for word.
 
gimmewhitecastles said:
I dont think Rick Reilly is attempting to write an unbiased article. I think he makes it pretty clear this is an opinionated piece. But what I do find interesting from this piece is the owners dont supply the books on their profit margins. You can't really be unbiased on this subject if you don't know specific details.
Click to expand...

Exactly. All the owners have to do is open up their books. But they don't. And when you're not willing to do something that should in theory help your cause, it usually means you're misrepresenting or flat out not telling the truth. Given that and the way our society has gone in the last few decades, I'm squarely in the camp that they're greedy bastards just trying to take larger slices of the cake for themselves.

I invite them to prove me wrong.
 
gimmewhitecastles said:
I dont think Rick Reilly is attempting to write an unbiased article. I think he makes it pretty clear this is an opinionated piece. But what I do find interesting from this piece is the owners dont supply the books on their profit margins. You can't really be unbiased on this subject if you don't know specific details.
Click to expand...

not so much that it's biased, just that the methodology behind is argument is complete garbage. Either he's using a poor argument to enforce one side of the debate, or he simply has a poor handle on using relevant numbers or information and just doesn't know any better.

He's a sports "journalist," so I'm gonna go with the latter. 😉
 
crownjules said:
Exactly. All the owners have to do is open up their books. But they don't. And when you're not willing to do something that should in theory help your cause, it usually means you're misrepresenting or flat out not telling the truth. Given that and the way our society has gone in the last few decades, I'm squarely in the camp that they're greedy bastards just trying to take larger slices of the cake for themselves.

I invite them to prove me wrong.
Click to expand...

Exactly: Put up or shut up.

If you are going to claim you lost money, then prove it.

MotionMan
 
crownjules said:
Exactly. All the owners have to do is open up their books. But they don't. And when you're not willing to do something that should in theory help your cause, it usually means you're misrepresenting or flat out not telling the truth. Given that and the way our society has gone in the last few decades, I'm squarely in the camp that they're greedy bastards just trying to take larger slices of the cake for themselves.

I invite them to prove me wrong.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it varies a lot from team to team, and the owners have other negotiations going on and they don't want to tip their hands to each other on those.

The big market teams want a bigger slice of the shared revenue pie - Dallas and New England don't like Buffalo and Jacksonville getting the same amount of shared revenue as them. So while there probably are several teams barely making money or even losing money - Jerry Jones doesn't want to show how much money he is making, because it hurts his case in the other argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top