Packers aren't doing NFL any favors with their financial strategyBut? There needs to be a "but"? Doesn't running a business intelligently justify itself? No!
The Packers have elected to be exceptionally frugal in recent years when it comes to player compensation. Ted Thompson and company have been non-existent in the free agent market the past three years. Instead, they have just given extensions to players already under contract like Aaron Rodgers and Greg Jennings in order to reach the mandated salary floor. That strategy is good for business and arguably a sound football decision, but...
...it doesn't do the other owners any favors when the end of the fiscal year financial information is released by the Packers. ... Recent news of the Packers' operating profit of over $20 million last year appears to hurt the owners' argument that opting out of the latest Collective Bargaining Agreement with the players was necessary. If a franchise in a miniscule market can turn a profit during a historically down economy, what does that say about big money owners like Dan Snyder and Robert Kraft? ... A better strategy, knowing the CBA negotiations were looming, would have been to spend closer to the cap in 2008 and thus negate a lot of the revenue that was being generated. It may not have been ideal in the short term for the Packers but it sure could have strengthened the position and argument of the league going forward.A better strategy would be to make less financially responsible decisions? That's ludicrous, right? If it's not a good decision for the Packers, then they shouldn't do it.
Strengthening a franchise strengthens the league. Always. If the Packers are a strong franchise, that helps the league, period. If it really does weaken an argument the league might be trying to make in some venue, then that suggests the argument is BS.