Started By
Message
locked post

Panther's Financials Leaked, $112mil In Profits 2010-2012

Posted on 3/7/13 at 4:46 pm
Posted by lighter345
Member since Jan 2009
11864 posts
Posted on 3/7/13 at 4:46 pm
Interesting read considering what the Owners were saying during the lock out and how safeguarded the teams are about their financials.

quote:

In 2010 and 2011, as the NFL prepared for and staged a lockout of its players, Carolina Panthers owner Jerry Richardson was among the hardest of the hardliners, urging his fellow owners to "take back our league" by demanding a more management-friendly collective-bargaining agreement.

Meanwhile, according to an audited financial statement obtained by Deadspin, Richardson's Panthers were making more than $100 million in profit over the fiscal years covering those two seasons.
The statement is for the years ending March 31, 2011, and March 31, 2012. Over the first period, as Richardson argued that the NFL's business model was hopelessly broken and steered the owners toward a showdown to extract more money from the players, the Panthers recorded an operating profit of $78.7 million. The team had gone 2-14 on the field, but Richardson and his partners were able to pay themselves $12 million.

Why the big gap in operating profits between 2011 and 2012? The Panthers decided to spend money on talent. Player payroll jumps from $78 million to $100 million, and amortization of player signing bonuses goes from $24 million to $54 million.


Over the following year, after the owners had won their lockout and reduced the players' share of league revenue from 50 percent to 47 percent, the Panthers brought in $33.3 million in operating profit. Richardson began lobbying for public subsidies to renovate his 17-year-old stadium. The team went 6-10.


quote:

These franchises are a license to print money," says Dennis Howard, a business professor at the University of Oregon, who looked over the Panthers' financial statement at Deadspin's request. "This team is pretty damn healthy," he says, and its financial outlook is "very bright," citing the new, owner-friendly collective bargaining agreement and the league's fat new TV contract, signed in 2011, which kicks in next year. Under the terms of that deal, Howard estimates, the Panthers could bring in an additional $60-$65 million in annual TV revenue alone.


quote:

A witness told Yahoo's Michael Silver about a March 2010 meeting at which Richardson addressed his fellow owners: "Jerry said, 'We signed a [expletive] deal last time, and we're going to stick together and take back our league and [expletive] do something about it.' He was practically yelling. It was amazing, and it set an incredible tone." In one memorable press conference before the work stoppage, Richardson, now 76 years old, drew a crude pie chart that showed the players swallowing up a preponderance of league revenue.

"I don't think many business schools would say that's a model that's going to sustain itself," Richardson said, claiming that team owners had "a negative cash flow of $200 million.

In 2011 and 2012, however, the cash position of the Panthers was healthy: $8.3 million and $38.4 million, respectively. Assuming Richardson's number has any basis whatsoever, it's likely he was factoring in an accounting sleight-of-hand known as the roster depreciation allowance (more on which later).



quote:

Last fall, the team began drawing up plans for renovating Bank of America Stadium, which was built largely with Richardson's money and which opened in 1996. The Panthers figured renovations would cost $300 million, $200 million of which, they'd hoped, would come out of the public till. Charlotte has been eager to help, to the tune of $144 million. But the state thus far has been less accommodating, and with good reason.

"Based on the team's financial condition, there is absolutely no justification for such a large public subsidy," Howard writes in an email. The financials "show unequivocally that the team has the capacity to finance the improvements on its own. The team could easily pledge a portion of the anticipated increase in TV revenues to finance the debt service for the improvements."


LINK
This post was edited on 3/7/13 at 4:51 pm
Posted by LaBornNRaised
Loomis blows
Member since Feb 2011
11004 posts
Posted on 3/7/13 at 5:27 pm to
And their team sucks to top it off.
Posted by molsusports
Member since Jul 2004
36105 posts
Posted on 3/7/13 at 5:30 pm to
hugely profitable? check

stadiums funded largely at taxpayer expense? check

still want to take a larger percentage of the pie? check
Posted by tigerpimpbot
Chairman of the Pool Board
Member since Nov 2011
66883 posts
Posted on 3/7/13 at 5:31 pm to
Reminds me of how the marlins duped Miami Dade into voting for public funding for the new stadium claiming the team was losing money. Then their pre vote financials were leaked showing the team was making over $30 mil + per year in profits
Posted by jcole4lsu
The Kwisatz Haderach
Member since Nov 2007
30922 posts
Posted on 3/7/13 at 5:35 pm to
quote:

stadiums funded largely at taxpayer expense? check

thats the part that bothers me. if the taxpayers pay for the stadium, then the books should be open and a % of team profit should go back to the city.

of course, the taxpayers could always just vote "no" but never seem to do so.
Posted by BBONDS25
Member since Mar 2008
48009 posts
Posted on 3/7/13 at 5:41 pm to


According to Forbes, the Panthers are worth $1billion
LINK

2010-2012 profits = $122MM So each year averages $37.34MM.

Thats 3.734% return a year. Is that supposed to be outrageous?

Posted by threeputt
God's Country
Member since Sep 2008
24791 posts
Posted on 3/7/13 at 5:43 pm to
Shhhhhhh... Don't let the facts get in the way
Posted by lighter345
Member since Jan 2009
11864 posts
Posted on 3/7/13 at 5:45 pm to
$112 was from two operating years. Not three seasons.

And the fact he was saying the system was broken while making $50+mil is outrageous with a losing team. Also saying the cash flow was.-$200mil when it clearly wasn't.
This post was edited on 3/7/13 at 5:52 pm
Posted by BBONDS25
Member since Mar 2008
48009 posts
Posted on 3/7/13 at 5:47 pm to
Ok. 6.1% My point remains.

I guess an NFL franchise is a pretty good bond portfolio.
This post was edited on 3/7/13 at 5:48 pm
Posted by jcole4lsu
The Kwisatz Haderach
Member since Nov 2007
30922 posts
Posted on 3/7/13 at 5:53 pm to
yeah but Richardson portrayed his financial situation as dire, which is incorrect by any measure.

and im not sure your calculation of ROI is really relevant in this situation. instead of taking the total worth of the franchise as the baseline, i think the operating cost would be more accurate.
Posted by lighter345
Member since Jan 2009
11864 posts
Posted on 3/7/13 at 5:54 pm to
Well that was pre lockout, so probably at least double that.
And again I don't care about the money or who's making it. Just don't like the fact the owners were saying the system was broken when a small market losing team was doing just fine.
Posted by BBONDS25
Member since Mar 2008
48009 posts
Posted on 3/7/13 at 6:05 pm to
quote:

and im not sure your calculation of ROI is really relevant in this situation. instead of taking the total worth of the franchise as the baseline, i think the operating cost would be more accurate.

He has an asset worth $1B, returning 6.1% interest. I'm not crying for the guy, but it certainly is on par with what he could get if he invested $1B elsewhere.
Posted by threeputt
God's Country
Member since Sep 2008
24791 posts
Posted on 3/7/13 at 6:06 pm to
quote:

Team was doing just fine


Says who? The owners goal is to make as much money as possible. I am sure none of the owners think that they made enough money or are doing "just fine"
Posted by jacks40
Baton Rouge
Member since Oct 2007
11877 posts
Posted on 3/7/13 at 6:10 pm to
quote:

the guy, but it certainly is on par with what he could get if he invested $1B elsewhere.


Investing a billion dollars isn't different then owning something the increase in value to that billion dollars?

He never put up $1 billion of his own money.
Posted by jacks40
Baton Rouge
Member since Oct 2007
11877 posts
Posted on 3/7/13 at 6:11 pm to
quote:

Says who?


People who don't think public tax dollars should be invested in sports stadiums.
Posted by jcole4lsu
The Kwisatz Haderach
Member since Nov 2007
30922 posts
Posted on 3/7/13 at 6:18 pm to
quote:

but it certainly is on par with what he could get if he invested $1B elsewhere.

if maximizing profit was the goal, he should sell the panthers and invest the monies received from the sale.
again, i think your valuation is off. its operating as a business, not a mutual fund.
revenue - costs = profit
costs/profit = roi %
Posted by SPEEDY
2005 Tiger Smack Poster of the Year
Member since Dec 2003
83331 posts
Posted on 3/7/13 at 6:18 pm to
quote:

He has an asset worth $1B, returning 6.1% interest.



An asset that will only increase in worth and not decrease.

The problem is the owners lying to the public that they are losing money, when the fact is they aren't.
Posted by threeputt
God's Country
Member since Sep 2008
24791 posts
Posted on 3/7/13 at 6:23 pm to
Pretty sure none of the owners said that they were losing money
This post was edited on 3/7/13 at 6:24 pm
Posted by jcole4lsu
The Kwisatz Haderach
Member since Nov 2007
30922 posts
Posted on 3/7/13 at 6:26 pm to
you should re-read the OP
Posted by jacks40
Baton Rouge
Member since Oct 2007
11877 posts
Posted on 3/7/13 at 6:26 pm to
quote:

Posted by threeputt Pretty sure none of the owners said that they were losing money


Did you read the article?

first pageprev pagePage 1 of 3Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram