Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

53% vs 70%

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 53% vs 70%

    NFL owners say 70% went to players salaries. Yet an accounting firm says it was 53%.

    Who do you believe?

  • #2
    Originally posted by sfphillyfan View Post
    NFL owners say 70% went to players salaries. Yet an accounting firm says it was 53%.

    Who do you believe?
    Since the League would have an interest in overstating the percentage, I'd have to lean toward the outside view. But then, who hired the accounting firm, the players?

    Comment


    • #3
      At the heart of the dispute is what is considered "revenue". The owners want to count only a portion of their actual "take" as revenue. And so depending on the denominator, you get a smaller or bigger percentage.

      Comment


      • #4
        What accounting practice allows you to exclude $1 Billion before stating incoming dollars as revenue?
        "Nobody in football should be called a genius. A genius is a guy like Norman Einstein." - Joe Theismann



        Comment


        • #5
          Dont confuse actual salaries and accounting salaries. When accruals are taken into consideration and possible benefits added, the numbers can vary. Bonuses may be accrued but not paid for years. If one is cash flow and the other GAPP accounting, it would easily explain the difference.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by stocknowledge View Post
            What accounting practice allows you to exclude $1 Billion before stating incoming dollars as revenue?
            The one that has some senators in your back pocket.

            Originally posted by kyfred View Post
            Dont confuse actual salaries and accounting salaries. When accruals are taken into consideration and possible benefits added, the numbers can vary. Bonuses may be accrued but not paid for years. If one is cash flow and the other GAPP accounting, it would easily explain the difference.
            There's no dispute between the owners and the players as to the salary number. (it's real money, not funny money/cap dollars.) The dispute is in what the count as revenue.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by stocknowledge View Post
              What accounting practice allows you to exclude $1 Billion before stating incoming dollars as revenue?
              Defining terms is a fairly common practice. Just as you have gross income, net income, adjusted gross income, etc. Just dependson how you define terms in your agreement
              Wait until next year is a terrible philosophy
              Hope is not a strategy
              RIP

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by NoDakIggle` View Post
                Just dependson how you define terms in your agreement

                This sounds an awful lot like marriage!! Then again what do I know - I fell in love at first sight. (I should have looked twice!!! )
                Official Driver of the Eagles Bandwagon!!!
                Bleedin' Green since birth!

                "Do not regret growing older. It is a privilege denied to many." - Mike Willey

                ”Enjoy The Ride!!!” - Bob Marcus

                Comment


                • #9
                  Neither is lying they are both accurate numbers. One is using Gross profit (all money brought in, that is 53%) the other is using Net Profit (after expenses before salary expense 70%)
                  Were from Philly F in Philly no one likes us we DON'T CARE!

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X