I don’t disagree. His posts make me laugh, so I can never get mad at them.
hfxTC
Thank you - the Esks are doing very very well - you explained it simplistic for all - they camouflaged
Several million in capital expenditures - we need to realize last years attendance for the Esks was the 2nd lowest since the year 2000- with the year pervious 2013 being the worst in the last 15 years - Bungle said it
Their is a lot of money being made - by most teams - at the expense of the players - you have the 2 nd lowest
Attendance in 15 years and you still make between 3.6 - 6.0 million - great news for,the Cfl - but not the players who are the reason for the profits .
You are giving that extra million or so an awful lot of power.
For the sake of perspective:
[url=https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/cfl-55-yard-line/eskimos-profits-soar-despite-diminishing-attendance-operating-revenues-234951398.html]https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/cfl-5 ... 51398.html[/url]"...(In 2013) despite a season that saw them struggle on the field and bleed attendance in the stands (especially over the last few games of the year), the team made a consolidated net profit of $1,683,920, more than eight times the $207,060 they announced for 2012 last May."
...
"The biggest part of the team's financial success in 2013 came from cost-cutting, and it's staggering how much they were able to reduce their costs. Their operating expenses this past season were just $17.2 million, $1.6 million (or 9.5 per cent) below 2012. The biggest part of that came from administration costs dropping by $798,000, but game-day costs also fell $271,000, and sponsorship and sales costs dropped by $98,000. (Remarkably, despite spending less money to attract sponsorships, the team pulled in an extra $476,000 in sponsorship income, thanks largely to the addition of LED advertising boards on the east sidelines.) Football operations costs also fell by $299,000 overall, but that doesn't mean the team's skimping there; they actually spent $390,000 more if you don't count 2012 expenses on football personnel turnover (primarily ditching GM Eric Tillman), playoff travel, accommodations and game cheques, and players on the injured list. While the football operations costs may not stay down going forward (the team would undoubtedly like to get back to the playoffs, even on the road, and it's tough to predict injury costs or personnel turnover), most of the other cost-cutting should hopefully be sustainable. With the team set to rake in big TV money starting this coming season, their profits could soar even further if they put together a solid on-field product and start drawing more fans again."
Tack on:
"This doesn't necessarily mean that absolutely everything is rosy in Edmonton, of course. Keep in mind that the team lost $2.3 million in 2010 despite hosting the Grey Cup and only made $473,471 in 2011 (PDF). There were other factors involved in those years, of course, including massive one-time expenses of almost $9 million for stadium upgrades in 2010, but it's notable that this year's million-plus profit is the exception recently rather than the rule."
So a 3.6M profit sounds pretty good to me. :thup:
He seems to have found a middle ground for his posts. Earlier, they were too extreme.
Everything is getting better. That’s all we can hope for. As I have said in the past, “If EVERY team made $1 per year, EVERY year going forward, that would be okay by me”.
Hopefully next time the players and owners sit down every team is healthy and there is enough money to keep everyone happy.
I don’t understand your rant here. Why is it a crime that a team makes a little bit of money? Where is it written that they should be a not for profit business? I can guarantee you that over the last 20 years, no team in the East is in the black. Why shouldn’t they be able to recoup some of their losses over that period of time? Or would you rather only see a 6 team league of profitable markets that give the players a 20% hike in salary? That would really go over well with the PA.
yeah I am… I am because that extra million would mean a 35 hour work week instead of 20. Not so many procedure penalties, no so many missed assignments and wrong routes run. Even receivers being more used to different QBs and how they throw the ball and thus less dropped passes… Do you not remember back to back Roughrider / Eskimo games last season (one was in the playoffs) when neither team could even get a snap off?It ended up being first and 35 or something ridiculous like that. The whole season was a comedy of errors and almost unwatchable… That Demo ton/Saskatchewan playoff game was a complete embarrassment… To go out there and drop the passes that Saskatchewan dropped in the second half was unbelievable… The Riders should have been blown out already by that point anyways after throwing 5 ints, but because Edmonton was so brutal that the Riders somehow only lost by a few points… It was a complete joke of a game, and anyone who would have seen that game as their first CFL game would have thought the players were either amateurs or drunk.
Bungle that extra mil would NOT have purchased a 50%+ increase in the official work week. Also, if you think any starter is only putting in the base for hours, you are only fooling yourself. These guys are doing extra drills and watching extra video "on their own." If they are not...they don't start long.
You do nothing but bash the league. stop watching.
As for their increase in revenue...only 1/3 of that was from additional TV revenue. What does 3.6mil in profit ACTUALLY mean in the big picture? Something that is appealing to investors. Previous years provided 5 point or less return (often much less and into the negative territory), and that is not appealing to investor who is wise with money. 10-15 points...pretty appealing. I've said it before...until teams are getting that 10%+ return, you won't see a pile of people looking to sink money into a 10th team. This is great news for the CFL.
The Tiger Cats have been losing money for years, no one can remember the last time they made money. Bob Young has lost millions every year. Now they have the potential to make a profit, if they can get their first season in the new stadium. The Argos are losing a reported $6 Million a year and no guarantees of making a lot of money at BMO.
The CFL East and West is like two different leagues, the west teams making money and good attendance and the east teams struggling.
A few teams making money is no reason to pay out millions more to the players. The last thing that teams need right now are higher operating costs.
and yet teams willingly and increasingly pay higher and higher operating costs/wages to administrators, management and coaches while player salaries have remained fairly stagnant for quite some time.
Compensation packages for the former positions have risen 2-3 fold within the past decade but the highest paid CFL players have actually decreased during this same period.
(e.g. Ricky Ray and Casey Printers made $500,000+ years ago and now not one single player makes even that amount today)
why is that?
and why can there not be a similar pay scale % for the actual product on the field or at least a more equal allocation of operating capital between the two sides ?
tangledweb:
Thank you - you are asking the right questions - the Esks spent 2.8 million on 9 or 10 coaches - according to their report- only 18% on players salaries - of total revenue - it wasn't that many years ago that the players gave up their revenue sharing to help,the league and now the owners refuse to put it back on the table - most leagues have their revenue sharing at about 50% - I believe the cflpa had it at just over that - 12 or 13 million
Of course would be too high at this present time for salaries - but only around 20% - let's hope next time around the players are fairly compensated for such a great product
The article I posted seems to say the very opposite. Edmonton reduced theirs dramatically as recently as 2013. Do we know for a fact that no other team has done the same?
And anyway, I recall reading some years ago that one of the consequences of the salary cap was that teams are now able to pay for more and better coaches. This is good for the players, the league and ultimately the fans.
I would agree with you if operating costs were capped as are the players salaries but that isn’t the case. Every pro league that has a salary cap has revenue sharing and a minimum percentage going to the players. There is a reason for that. Some leagues are at arouond 50 percent, obviously this would not work in the CFL but a percentage of 30 to 33 percent would be fair.
As for the East West thing. Its no different in any other league. You think the Cayotes have similar revenues to the Leafs ? :lol:
The CFL resembles the old six team NHL. Runned more like the mob than a pro league.
I have no problem with a SMS, but why place a salary cap on players and not one on coaches/football ops?
and why do the latter receive guaranteed contracts and golden severance parachutes not afforded to the on-field product?
and how much money is frivolously wasted on fired personnel that could go towards the SMS?
This type of model will ultimately see greater pay discrepancies between the two sides as nothing prevents any team from breaking the bank to sign high priced ops leaving less and less % of revenues going toward players.
Because they are fewer and more therefore more valuable. They also potentially have other career options. A coach may be able to find a job in a number of schools throughout the U.S. whereas a pro player who does not have interest from the NFL pretty much only has the CFL and AFL as options if he wants to continue playing. So the CFL has a harder job enticing coaches and therefore offers them more.
I don’t know and neither do you. I suppose you could measure it against the cost of perpetuating an error for a longer period of time. If Montreal had held on to that Barney Rubble looking guy from a couple of years back (his name escapes me), what might that have done to ticket sales and other revenue streams, in your estimation? Paying him might very well be better than keeping him at his position.
AFL info, for reference’s sake. I can’t swear to its accuracy, I don’t follow that league.
Under the collective bargaining agreement reached in 2012, effective through 2017, active rookies receive $775 per game for the 2014 season. This rises to $820 in 2015. The 2017 season adds another $50 raise for rookies, increasing pay to $870 per game. As of 2014, active veterans receive $830 per game. Their game salary rises to $875 in 2015 with a raise to $925 per game for 2017. Inactive veterans earn $600 per game as of 2014, rising to $625 per game in 2015 with a raise in 2017 to $650 per game.Read more : http://www.ehow.com/info_7759608_averag … ayers.html
Looks like an 18-game season. Work out the math at your leisure.