Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
How the Eagles have such a stacked roster
#26
(02-13-2025, 05:27 PM)Whatever Wrote: $400 million sounds like a lot of money until you realize that the Packers had operating costs of $596 mil, nearly 150% of that revenue sharing check.  

They are a cash poor team compared to the other 31 clubs they bid against for talent.  That isn't really debatable.

The Packers operating costs also includes things like stadium upgrades and buying and developing real estate as investments. Over the previous two decades they've spent $600m on the stadium and $300m on their "Titletown District" which includes a hotel, brewery, etc. They also keep buying land around the stadium over time.

So those "operating costs" are inflated by non-player/personnel expenses that the Bengals simply don't have.

Not to say that the Browns/Blackburns have Walton or Hunt money, but they are doing quite fine financially.
____________________________________________________________

[Image: 784c0710-9a90-11ed-bbbf-9bb304d6cb13]
1
Reply/Quote





Messages In This Thread
RE: How the Eagles have such a stacked roster - TheLeonardLeap - 02-13-2025, 07:19 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 12 Guest(s)