Matt LaFleur did not have final say on hiring assistants

If and I mean IF LaFleur was told you have to hire this guy or that guy and he was ok with it it shows you he was willing to compromise himself to become a HC. Some guys who are first time HC are willing to do that to get foot in the door.
 
To be honest, I've never really cared for Murphy. He wasn't the first choice to succeed Harlan, and I think when he first came on board he adapted a Laissez-faire approach to any/all involvement in football operations, and instead let Ted run the football team un-incumbered of any input/guidance from him.
It's probably why it took so long for a decision to remove Ted from his duties came about. The article said that Gute, Wolf, Highsmith and others took on responsibilities that should have been Ted's to do, but for which he no longer had the energy/focus to do.
So, Who's asleep at the switch? Murphy (IMO).

Regarding alleged organizational interference with ML's hiring/choices for his coaching staff, I think that's more of a mole hill than a mountain.
First, regarding Pettine. The article said, ["Defensive coordinator Mike Pettine was not forced on LaFleur, but the new coach was strongly encouraged to keep him."]. I read that as, the organization didn't want ML to dismiss keeping Pettine out of hand, but rather interview him and decide for himself. ML did interview Pettine, and he kept him. To dismiss Pettine would have meant bringing in the 3rd DC in 3 years for the team, plus they would be paying the rest of Pettines contract, along with the rest of MM's contract, and also for another new DC.
I think keeping Pettine was the right move, even if ML felt pressure to do so.
As for the Rizzi cluster, that falls in Russ Ball's lap because he holds sway as Director of Football Operations. I think Murphy covered for him claiming that the Packers offered Rizzi what he wanted before he left town. But I think that was Ball flexing his muscle, because Rizzi had made his contract demands public before he came to Green Bay to interview and Ball may have wanted to control the narrative on contract terms. Also, what we don't know is what "title" Rizzi wanted to be recognized as, as a member of the Packers staff? In Miami he was ST's/Assistant HC. That may have been a bridge too far for Green Bay.
It's clear Ball has his detractors in the organization as he has been labeled as a corporate climber and is rumored to rub people in house the wrong way on numerous occasions. But I also think that Murphy is grooming Ball to be HIS successor as team president, for when it comes time for him to step aside. That could be a possible reason why Murphy gave Ball a more expansive title and large pay raise to stay when Murphy hired Gute as GM/personnel manager instead of Ball, who wanted to take over Ted's job.

Ultimately, I think Murphy has been trying to make it seem, to the outside world, that he's everyones big buddy and that he supports the heads/directors of all facets of the Packers Football Organization, when in actuality he's trying to keep everyone under his thumb.
I doubt we see any changes in this organizational structure in the near term, and only then if the whole thing implodes and turns into some kind of hot mess. If that happens, Packer Nation will not be happy...…………..but the ultimate blame will land squarely at the feet of Mr. Mark Murphy.
 
The Packers league sharing is only part of what makes a team profitable. When it costs in the neighborhood of $450 mill (could be more) to operate a team for a given year, having $250 - $275 mill from shared TV rights isn't enough. You need income from game attendance, caps, shirts, etc, and any other marketing you can get to make things work. Big city markets do just fine there, but Green Bay is the smallest market and regardless, has less outside revenue stream potential than anyone else.

As an example, stadium naming rights. Look at the millions teams bring in around the league. The Packers do it with gates, at a lesser value. There isn't the team support population to even dent that which is there for the Cowboys, and therefore make Jones' operation most successful.

The entire idea of the businesses outside the stadium being developed is to offset the need for the future, since there is absolutely no guarantee that revenue sharing will remain anything near like what it is today. It could change as soon as the next league meeting, and agreement with the NFLPA.

What do the Packers show as profit over the course of a year? Somewhat under $40 million? If their total revenue stream is in the area of $600 million, that's a pretty paltry sum. I'd guess that the Cowboys stream will show at least 4 or 5 times that level of profits over the course of a year. Even that could be way off, on the low side.

Look around the league and you'll find a lot of the smaller market teams will leave some cap room on the table at the end of the year so they can use it the following year, or, if needed, absorb it into their profit and loss statements, to up their bottom line.

Since we can't look into the books on any team, other than the Packers, it's hard to say, but I'd guess you could do a population/fan base calculation to show the difference in profitability.

The fact is, if the product on the field begins to suffer, so does all the outside business interests which the Packers also rely on to support the entire organization. There's a reason that those of us who helped build the Packer Hall of Fame had to dig deep to make it happen. The fan base was eroding, even if the tickets were still being sold. There are always die-hard fans, but not always those on the periphery who add a lot of cash to the operation. And, as someone whose family has bought stock in every Packer stock sale, I can tell you that no matter how much they say they've got it wired, it ain't always true. When you need to turn to the public to raise the money for modifications through shares, and you need to sell licenses for seats, you're obviously not bringing in enough to meet "future needs," like you'd hope your model would.
 
To be honest, I've never really cared for Murphy. He wasn't the first choice to succeed Harlan, and I think when he first came on board he adapted a Laissez-faire approach to any/all involvement in football operations, and instead let Ted run the football team un-incumbered of any input/guidance from him.
It's probably why it took so long for a decision to remove Ted from his duties came about. The article said that Gute, Wolf, Highsmith and others took on responsibilities that should have been Ted's to do, but for which he no longer had the energy/focus to do.
So, Who's asleep at the switch? Murphy (IMO).

Regarding alleged organizational interference with ML's hiring/choices for his coaching staff, I think that's more of a mole hill than a mountain.
First, regarding Pettine. The article said, ["Defensive coordinator Mike Pettine was not forced on LaFleur, but the new coach was strongly encouraged to keep him."]. I read that as, the organization didn't want ML to dismiss keeping Pettine out of hand, but rather interview him and decide for himself. ML did interview Pettine, and he kept him. To dismiss Pettine would have meant bringing in the 3rd DC in 3 years for the team, plus they would be paying the rest of Pettines contract, along with the rest of MM's contract, and also for another new DC.
I think keeping Pettine was the right move, even if ML felt pressure to do so.
As for the Rizzi cluster, that falls in Russ Ball's lap because he holds sway as Director of Football Operations. I think Murphy covered for him claiming that the Packers offered Rizzi what he wanted before he left town. But I think that was Ball flexing his muscle, because Rizzi had made his contract demands public before he came to Green Bay to interview and Ball may have wanted to control the narrative on contract terms. Also, what we don't know is what "title" Rizzi wanted to be recognized as, as a member of the Packers staff? In Miami he was ST's/Assistant HC. That may have been a bridge too far for Green Bay.
It's clear Ball has his detractors in the organization as he has been labeled as a corporate climber and is rumored to rub people in house the wrong way on numerous occasions. But I also think that Murphy is grooming Ball to be HIS successor as team president, for when it comes time for him to step aside. That could be a possible reason why Murphy gave Ball a more expansive title and large pay raise to stay when Murphy hired Gute as GM/personnel manager instead of Ball, who wanted to take over Ted's job.

Ultimately, I think Murphy has been trying to make it seem, to the outside world, that he's everyones big buddy and that he supports the heads/directors of all facets of the Packers Football Organization, when in actuality he's trying to keep everyone under his thumb.
I doubt we see any changes in this organizational structure in the near term, and only then if the whole thing implodes and turns into some kind of hot mess. If that happens, Packer Nation will not be happy...…………..but the ultimate blame will land squarely at the feet of Mr. Mark Murphy.
First I don't think titles mean much of anything. Winston Moss had the title of assistant HC under MM.
Second I do agree Ball is likely to become team president once Murphy retires.
 
First I don't think titles mean much of anything. Winston Moss had the title of assistant HC under MM.
Second I do agree Ball is likely to become team president once Murphy retires.
Possible, but Moss was a close buddy of MM's when he was hired, by MM, and I think MM did that to keep Moss close to him.
IMO, it was favoritism, and that could not apply to Rizzi. There was no such prior connection of ML to Rizzi, and that's why I think Ball would not be willing to accommodate such a request.
 
Possible, but Moss was a close buddy of MM's when he was hired, by MM, and I think MM did that to keep Moss close to him.
IMO, it was favoritism, and that could not apply to Rizzi. There was no such prior connection of ML to Rizzi, and that's why I think Ball would not be willing to accommodate such a request.

Rizzi didn't want the title as it turned out. He took his current job without the added title... he did get the $ he asked for no questions asked.
 
The Packers league sharing is only part of what makes a team profitable. When it costs in the neighborhood of $450 mill (could be more) to operate a team for a given year, having $250 - $275 mill from shared TV rights isn't enough. You need income from game attendance, caps, shirts, etc, and any other marketing you can get to make things work. Big city markets do just fine there, but Green Bay is the smallest market and regardless, has less outside revenue stream potential than anyone else.

As an example, stadium naming rights. Look at the millions teams bring in around the league. The Packers do it with gates, at a lesser value. There isn't the team support population to even dent that which is there for the Cowboys, and therefore make Jones' operation most successful.

The entire idea of the businesses outside the stadium being developed is to offset the need for the future, since there is absolutely no guarantee that revenue sharing will remain anything near like what it is today. It could change as soon as the next league meeting, and agreement with the NFLPA.

What do the Packers show as profit over the course of a year? Somewhat under $40 million? If their total revenue stream is in the area of $600 million, that's a pretty paltry sum. I'd guess that the Cowboys stream will show at least 4 or 5 times that level of profits over the course of a year. Even that could be way off, on the low side.

Look around the league and you'll find a lot of the smaller market teams will leave some cap room on the table at the end of the year so they can use it the following year, or, if needed, absorb it into their profit and loss statements, to up their bottom line.

Since we can't look into the books on any team, other than the Packers, it's hard to say, but I'd guess you could do a population/fan base calculation to show the difference in profitability.

The fact is, if the product on the field begins to suffer, so does all the outside business interests which the Packers also rely on to support the entire organization. There's a reason that those of us who helped build the Packer Hall of Fame had to dig deep to make it happen. The fan base was eroding, even if the tickets were still being sold. There are always die-hard fans, but not always those on the periphery who add a lot of cash to the operation. And, as someone whose family has bought stock in every Packer stock sale, I can tell you that no matter how much they say they've got it wired, it ain't always true. When you need to turn to the public to raise the money for modifications through shares, and you need to sell licenses for seats, you're obviously not bringing in enough to meet "future needs," like you'd hope your model would.

Good post. While I agree on the majority of this a couple of things to point out.

Most teams who have new facilities carry a significant amount of debt service . Green Bay does not for the most part.

As to PSL’s all teams have them even ones with naming rights.

I would suspect gate naming rights in GB account for about $6m to $8m per year. As a comparison Philadelphia gets $12m per year from Lincoln Financial so the gap is not as significant as we might think.

As to merchandise that’s also revenue shared with the exception of Pro Shop.

I get the market size but I have never bought into the small market label in the NFL especially Green Bay. #1 90% of player costs are is driven from the cap really 100% but to account for cash flow for signing bonuses let’s give the benefit of the doubt there. #2 operation costs in GB are less than in a market say Dallas or Miami or Houston. #3 this is state team. Milwaukee should be factored into market size. Your local media rights most definitely have Milwaukee factored in , even flagship media partners are there.

Now to be fair there is some inequalities. #1 local sponsorship drive less revenue #2 number of non football events hurts revenue.

Bottom line this franchise is a cash cow. Unless tickets and sponsor revenue falls significantly (highly unlikely) financially this team is as sound as any in the NFL
 
Will have to give this 3-5 years if things are going south there will be loud voices to clear out coaching staff and FO along pushing Murphy into retirement and not promoting Bell to president after that
 
To dismiss Pettine would have meant bringing in the 3rd DC in 3 years for the team, plus they would be paying the rest of Pettines contract, along with the rest of MM's contract, and also for another new DC.
I

So financial considerations? Maybe much like Rizzi possibly the same? I don’t want the business side of my operation making football decisions. If Ball wanted to control contract narrative why even bring him in unless you understand the parameters. Makes me wonder how much autonomy Gute or ML has
 
Back
Top