[planetdoc]

Originally Posted by article

[SIZE="5"]
The Chiefs chairman and CEO was delighted, of course, by a victory that seemed to affirm the wisdom of monumental offseason changes.

something he might have reluctantly agreed to, if Gretz article is accurate....and now is trying to take credit for a move he didnt want to make.

Originally Posted by Line Judge

Didn't I read in one of the articles posted a while back on CP that Clark Hunt was the only one of the "Chiefs management committee" (a group whose title I do not remember) who voted to keep Pioli? Everybody else wanted him gone.

According to Bob Gretz, "key members of the Hunt Family football franchise took a vote. The voters numbered six, including Lamar Jr., Sharron, Clark and Daniel Hunt all four of the teams owners. Also part of the moment was Lee Derrough, former president & CEO of Hunt Midwest Enterprises and now a trustee of the Lamar Hunt and family interests in Kansas City. The sixth person involved was team president Mark Donovan.

The subject was the future of Scott Pioli as the franchise general manager.

How much discussion, if any, that went on is not clear. What is known is that a vote was taken on whether to keep Pioli, or fire him after four years in charge of the Chiefs. The vote was 5-1, in favor of dumping Pioli. The only vote in his favor came from Clark Hunt."

Originally Posted by article

[SIZE="5"]Said Donovan: “He’s the reason we are where we are right now.”

Would love to know what Donovan means by this. Since he was one of the 6 people who voted on Pioli's fate, would love for someone to interview him regarding the accuracy of Gretz report.

Originally Posted by mikey23545

Bullshit.

There a lot of businesses where it would be easier to make money.

Clark is in this one because he is competitive, he loves sports, and I think, to win more championships for his father.

NFL is easy money.

forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2013/01/04/nfl-playoffs-are-not-a-road-to-riches-for-teams/

Originally Posted by forbes article

The overall NFL financial model is a socialist one. The NFL splits revenues evenly among teams from national media and licensing deals like other sports. But the NFL is the only sport that also doles out an equal portion of gate receipts to each team ($17 million last season).

The NFL’s socialist model continues in the playoffs.

In football, all gate receipts flow to the league. The New England Patriots generate more than $10 million in gate receipts for each home game, but don’t see a dime of that. Teams get a stipend to cover expenses for each NFL game. Teams also receive money from the NFL to pay players for their participation in the playoffs (contracts only run through the regular season). Each player on last year’s Super Bowl winner, the New York Giants, received a total of $172,000 for four playoff games.

The home team in the NFL playoffs does get to keep revenues from things like concessions and parking at the stadium. NFL teams, as in other sports, can get a payoff in future years from a big playoff run when they are able to charge higher prices for tickets, suites and sponsorships.

So you might ask what is their PROFIT MARGIN? For the packers:
2011: $17.1 million (6%). superbowl winner
2010: $9.8 million. 11-5 team record.
2009: $20.1 million. 6-10 team record.

investopedia.com/financial-edge/1211/how-much-are-nfl-teams-really-worth.aspx

Originally Posted by investopedia

The biggest explanation for the divergent revenue numbers is player salaries. This summer, Packer management argued that salary increases were responsible for halving profits.

there was a time when teams DIDNT have to meet a minimum salary cap. The chiefs were able to pocket that money as profit. At the time of the article:

Originally Posted by investopedia

The team with the smallest payroll (Kansas City) still spends 60% of what the team with the largest payroll (the New York Giants) does.

The league's minimum salary cap requirements in the new CBA prevents teams like the Chiefs, Bengals, Panthers, etc. from purposefully cutting overhead (running a skeleton franchise) and profiting on the difference.

Originally Posted by investopedia

The Bottom Line
When you hear the bromide "he just wants to win" about a sports owner, understand that it's not necessarily true. Plenty of them would just as soon lose. And when a team opts not to re-sign a star, or tries to pass off stadium construction financing onto taxpayers, realize that it's almost always a purely economic decision. In other words, it's nothing personal. It's just business.

So in summary:
1. Although there are other buisnesses where one can make more money/profit, they entail risk. An NFL franchise is a risk free venture, guaranteeing millions in profit yearly.

2. Teams can increase their revenue by getting free money from the taxpayers.