N/S While Owner Cried Hardship, Carolina Panthers Had $112 Million Profit Over Two Years (1 Viewer)

Ever since Hugh Culverhouse's time in Tampa Bay, I do not believe these owners are losing money in the slightest. I used to go to Bucs games a lot when living there. Buy the cheapest ticket I could find and then find my down to the expensive sideline seats because no one was there anyway.

If you can be one of the most profitable owners in the NFL with 3/4 empty stadium, then you can be profitable any time. I don't care that he didn't pay his players well. Still made ridiculous profits with one of the worst products on the field year in and year out.
 
Well, as the article states, making a profit and having an operational loss are two different things. If he mostly financed the original stadium, he could still be making a profit, but still down from the original investment (operational loss).

So, the only way Richardson's argument holds water is if Owners need to make new stadiums in order to boost their local profit and have to fund it or fund a large % of it. So, in that case, it will take a long time for him to re-coup that cost. I'm just not sure how they report that in their financial statements.
 
You guys act like $112 Million is a lot of money. Geez, people gotta eat you know. How can he feed his family on only $112 Million? :jpshakehead:
 
Getting pretty sick of hearing billionairs crying hardship. Oh, poor me. I have to pay taxes. I am a job creator, you should give me a free pass because of course I made my billions without help from anybody.
 
I guess owners of billion dollar businesses want and expect to be billionaires themselves.

There was a quote from the article:
"<i>The team had gone 2-14 on the field, but Richardson and his partners were able to pay themselves $12 million.</i>"

I assume that's 12 million per partner and not a split 12 million. Anyway, when you put that into perspective, that's not a whole lot more than some players make annually.

It's argued that the players should make a significant portion of the pie because they are the product that is being sold and marketed -- however, business people tend to argue that the owners are assuming a majority of the financial risk, so they should have the larger piece.
 
Public flogging is the only way to deal with these types of people.
 
Or the average player's career is 3-4 years, and if they are lucky, they get to play 10+ years. At the conclusion of said career, they are more than likely to be in less than ideal physical condition.

I do understand that the players understand the inherent risks of football and they are compensated accordingly. However, there is something morally wrong when the owners make the real money without so much as putting on a cleat- all while claiming that they deserve a bigger percentage of revenue AND the public to finance their billion dollar stadiums.

My :tpenny:

I get your points, buy Richardson did wear the cleats.
Just saying.....
 
If you look back at the threads that went on during the lockout, I'd say almost half on here were pro Goodell/owners. I wonder what that number would be now.
 
You guys act like $112 Million is a lot of money. Geez, people gotta eat you know. How can he feed his family on only $112 Million? :jpshakehead:

Roger is that you? :)

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
 
It's a business and it made a profit-- I'm SHOCKED and outraged!

reader_rabbit_learn_to_read_game.jpg
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom