Its being reported that Roger Goodell was paid $44.2 million for the 12 months ending March 31, 2013. That is more than any other football player has ever been paid and twice as much as Aaron Rodgers will make next season. In the prior year, he made $29.5 million and the year before that, he made $11.6 million.
Given the hot-button NFL issues in recent years - concussions, treatment of former players - I believe this to be outrageous. While many will think that its right for people to make as much as they possibly can, $44.2 million (which represents a 281% increase from just 2 years ago), its hard to believe that money can't be spent on things other than going to a commissioner. But, I guess, the 1% work harder.
Quote from: AlumKCof93 on February 14, 2014, 03:17:15 PM
Its being reported that Roger Goodell was paid $44.2 million for the 12 months ending March 31, 2013. That is more than any other football player has ever been paid and twice as much as Aaron Rodgers will make next season. In the prior year, he made $29.5 million and the year before that, he made $11.6 million.
Given the hot-button NFL issues in recent years - concussions, treatment of former players - I believe this to be outrageous. While many will think that its right for people to make as much as they possibly can, $44.2 million (which represents a 281% increase from just 2 years ago), its hard to believe that money can't be spent on things other than going to a commissioner. But, I guess, the 1% work harder.
I think a lot of the 1% are screwing this country (a lot are also good businessmen and women), but I don't think Goodell is where you want to hang your hat on this. So he's making 3 or 4 times what many of his employees (players) are making. That is not outrageous.
And, I am not a Goodell fan. I think he is heavy-handed and arbitrary with many of his decisions.
I expect this thread to go immediately off the rails and over a cliff.
The IRS has rules against excessive compensation for not-for-profit institutions - and they are routinely ignored.
I really doubt that Goodell brings *that* much more value to the NFL than someone else would.
Quote from: The Sultan of Serenity on February 14, 2014, 03:37:25 PM
The IRS has rules against excessive compensation for not-for-profit institutions - and they are routinely ignored.
I really doubt that Goodell brings *that* much more value to the NFL than someone else would.
Under his watch, revenues have gone up several billion incrementally. Guess it depends how one judges value.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 14, 2014, 05:17:01 PM
Under his watch, revenues have gone up several billion incrementally. Guess it depends how one judges value.
I saw a piece within the last couple of weeks showing what happened to the NBA revenues on Stern's watch. It was staggering. He certainly earned whatever they paid him...and then some.
Quote from: AlumKCof93 on February 14, 2014, 03:17:15 PM
Its being reported that Roger Goodell was paid $44.2 million for the 12 months ending March 31, 2013. That is more than any other football player has ever been paid and twice as much as Aaron Rodgers will make next season. In the prior year, he made $29.5 million and the year before that, he made $11.6 million.
Given the hot-button NFL issues in recent years - concussions, treatment of former players - I believe this to be outrageous. While many will think that its right for people to make as much as they possibly can, $44.2 million (which represents a 281% increase from just 2 years ago), its hard to believe that money can't be spent on things other than going to a commissioner. But, I guess, the 1% work harder.
I'm always interested in how the non 1%'s know how hard the 1% work....especially when 99% of the 1%ers were once 99%ers and have lived both sides, but almost no 99%ers have been 1%ers.
There is a tradeoff for being in the 1% group, like people talking about you on a message board, railing on your every decision on the radio, tv, newspaper, etc. You get to be the subject of lawsuits, negative stories, work stoppages, shareholder complaints, etc and all the while you are ultimately responsible for leading an organization into continued prosperity to keep 100's, 1000's, millions of those 99%ers employed....for which he\she will get zero thanks. Now, if the company tanks, he\she will get 100% of the blame.
I'm always amazed too when usually there is someone that says "X makes blah blah millions of dollars, hell I could do his\her job". That one cracks me up the most. These people have no idea.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 14, 2014, 06:35:45 PM
Now, if the company tanks, he\she will get 100% of the blame.
And still walk away with millions
No wonder Jane Skinner was happy to bolt MKE, aina?
Quote from: LAZER on February 14, 2014, 06:50:14 PM
And still walk away with millions
But paying a heavy price in the process......keeping all those 99%ers employed will do that.
It's Sam Zell who said the 1% work hard. Of course there's a price to be paid for being a 1%er.
College athletes get ripped in message boards and on radio, and are the subject of negative stories and they're not pulling down millions. And do the 1%ers who make this cash really want need thank you's? You make it seem as though who make an ungodly sum like Goodell deserve sympathy. The sympathy should go to the players who aren't getting the medical insurance for injuries they suffered playing the sport that is making Goodell so wealthy.
Goodell isn't part of the 1%, he is in the .1% of the 1%. Folks routinely group well off, rich, wealthy, super rich, and Goodell/hedge fund manager/Jamie Dimon amount of money. But hey, national CEOs all sit on each others boards, and boards are typically tasked with setting the salary of the CEO, so I wonder why an incentive might exist to keep their pay so astronomically high.
He's getting paid for performance...much of the compensation is bonus based as well as a deferred pension that he delayed a few years ago so some of the 99%ers could be paid in full. Funny how that part of the story is left out in some of these stories.
He delivered, he was rewarded. Personally, I like that structure from an incentive perspective and from a results perspective. Those that get paid regardless of performance...that's all too often skating.
Good for him. Tired of all the penis and class envy in this country. Not many people in this world can do what he did, thus he will get paid as though only a handful of people can do it....which is the case. Supply and demand. That pisses people off, but that's the deal. Millions of teachers, millions of accountants, millions of marketers, etc, etc, but only a handful are truly excellent in these types of roles.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 14, 2014, 08:55:02 PM
He's getting paid for performance...much of the compensation is bonus based as well as a deferred pension that he delayed a few years ago so some of the 99%ers could be paid in full. Funny how that part of the story is left out in some of these stories.
He delivered, he was rewarded. Personally, I like that structure from an incentive perspective and from a results perspective. Those that get paid regardless of performance...that's all too often skating.
Good for him. Tired of all the penis and class envy in this country. Not many people in this world can do what he did, thus he will get paid as though only a handful of people can do it....which is the case. Supply and demand. That pisses people off, but that's the deal. Millions of teachers, millions of accountants, millions of marketers, etc, etc, but only a handful are truly excellent in these types of roles.
Why don't you respond to what I wrote, instead of throwing out talking points of people being class envy.
Goodell is a stooge for NFL owners, you think he is so uniquely qualified, his job is to be told what to do.
So yeah, the owners pay him, that's their prerogative and free American choice, now getting back to an eadlier point, in your opinion, should the NFL be a non profit organization? Thus be given tax breaks by the government you hold dear in your heart.
And to my question, around CEO pay, countless examples exist of them being paid these huge salaries, with stock and company values dropping, but hey, so what do you say then? Just maybe, don't you think the richest of the richest of the richest, game of the system for themselves, and while you and I may technically be in the 1‰, we ain't crap compared to these folks?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 14, 2014, 08:55:02 PM
He's getting paid for performance...much of the compensation is bonus based as well as a deferred pension that he delayed a few years ago so some of the 99%ers could be paid in full. Funny how that part of the story is left out in some of these stories.
He delivered, he was rewarded. Personally, I like that structure from an incentive perspective and from a results perspective. Those that get paid regardless of performance...that's all too often skating.
Good for him. Tired of all the penis and class envy in this country. Not many people in this world can do what he did, thus he will get paid as though only a handful of people can do it....which is the case. Supply and demand. That pisses people off, but that's the deal. Millions of teachers, millions of accountants, millions of marketers, etc, etc, but only a handful are truly excellent in these types of roles.
So if you are the best teacher in the world you should also make $44.2 million per year...oh wait that doesn't happen.
You spout a lot of things about people not being able to do some of these other jobs and criticize them for not knowing what the job entails, but in so doing you do not have any idea what their job entails nor do you have any idea as to their abilities.
I know a lot of people in the top 1% and a lot even in the top 0.1%, I also know a lot in the bottom 20% and I assure you that in many cases those in the top 20% are working harder than those in the top 1%.
These people work their tails off and if you are in the bottom 80% you have less than a 1% chance of ever making it to the top 1% in your life. Meanwhile 43% of the top 1% stay there (and many's kids also stay there without any effort).
Quote from: StillAWarrior on February 14, 2014, 06:03:19 PM
I saw a piece within the last couple of weeks showing what happened to the NBA revenues on Stern's watch. It was staggering. He certainly earned whatever they paid him...and then some.
I agree. He took over a league that couldn't even get their finals on live television...it was tape delayed. Think about that.
He left the league a lot better than when he found it. That was part of my point about a certain coach in the other thread. People sure seem to forget from hence they came or were....memories are awfully short. Stern did a very good job...I don't like what basketball has become in the NBA (yes, its better now than 10 years ago), but there is no denying he turned a league with drug addicts and massive perception problems into a powerhouse.
Quote from: reinko on February 14, 2014, 07:28:20 PM
Goodell isn't part of the 1%, he is in the .1% of the 1%. Folks routinely group well off, rich, wealthy, super rich, and Goodell/hedge fund manager/Jamie Dimon amount of money. But hey, national CEOs all sit on each others boards, and boards are typically tasked with setting the salary of the CEO, so I wonder why an incentive might exist to keep their pay so astronomically high.
Hire the right CEO, the value of the company goes up considerably. Its really that simple. My current CEO came in when we were trading at about $29 if I recall. Today we are at $72. That is worth BILLIONS.
The people I know who are in the 1% work a heck of a lot harder and more hours than the rest of us. CEOs who travel constantly and are working far longer days and usually 7 days per week plus their jobs and the jobs of others depend on the decisions they make. Its a combination of education, experience and ability.They are paid for what they can do and the 99% couldn't function in a similar position. The only exception in the 1% is Matt Lauer.
Quote from: elephantraker on February 14, 2014, 10:15:48 PM
The people I know who are in the 1% work a heck of a lot harder and more hours than the rest of us. CEOs who travel constantly and are working far longer days and usually 7 days per week plus their jobs and the jobs of others depend on the decisions they make. Its a combination of education, experience and ability.They are paid for what they can do and the 99% couldn't function in a similar position. The only exception in the 1% is Matt Lauer.
Yup. Incredible pressure. Lots of divorces, screwed up kids along the way....not always the healthiest way to go through life when you are a CEO at a big company. Tremendous work, but too many people have this image of Boss Hogg or Gordon Gecko sitting behind a desk smoking a cigar and washing themselves in $100 bills.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 14, 2014, 10:06:47 PM
I agree. He took over a league that couldn't even get their finals on live television...it was tape delayed. Think about that.
He left the league a lot better than when he found it. That was part of my point about a certain coach in the other thread. People sure seem to forget from hence they came or were....memories are awfully short. Stern did a very good job...I don't like what basketball has become in the NBA (yes, its better now than 10 years ago), but there is no denying he turned a league with drug addicts and massive perception problems into a powerhouse.
But nothing happens in a vacuum. He was commish at the same time that college BB reached the height of its popularity which was a big boost for the NBA.
And, seriously, MJ made a ton more money for the NBA than David Stern ever did. And it is not even close.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 14, 2014, 10:22:26 PM
Yup. Incredible pressure. Lots of divorces, screwed up kids along the way....not always the healthiest way to go through life when you are a CEO at a big company. Tremendous work, but too many people have this image of Boss Hogg or Gordon Gecko sitting behind a desk smoking a cigar and washing themselves in $100 bills.
As opposed to the single mother who has to work 3 jobs and is never home to raise her kids - but the streets are always there to do the job.
Yeah, those poor rich and powerful - they get to make the rules and regulations that keep them rich. I feel so bad. And that isn't a criticism - I would imagine most work very hard and many make a great deal of money for their companies. But sympathy for how hard they have it? Give me a break.
Quote from: elephantraker on February 14, 2014, 10:15:48 PM
The people I know who are in the 1% work a heck of a lot harder and more hours than the rest of us. CEOs who travel constantly and are working far longer days and usually 7 days per week plus their jobs and the jobs of others depend on the decisions they make. Its a combination of education, experience and ability.They are paid for what they can do and the 99% couldn't function in a similar position. The only exception in the 1% is Matt Lauer.
I don't doubt that Goodell is deserving of a salary that is commensurate with the pressures of goes along with running an organization the size and scope of the NFL. But that salary is incredible and does anyone truly believe that he deserves $44 million (a 250% increase since he took over the position)? Are there that few people who could do what he does? Shouldn't some of that money be used to confront other issues like the medical issues facing former players?
Quote from: AlumKCof93 on February 14, 2014, 10:44:37 PM
I don't doubt that Goodell is deserving of a salary that is commensurate with the pressures of goes along with running an organization the size and scope of the NFL. But that salary is incredible and does anyone truly believe that he deserves $44 million (a 250% increase since he took over the position)? Are there that few people who could do what he does? Shouldn't some of that money be used to confront other issues like the medical issues facing former players?
Yeah - the players are just "takers" ;D
Quote from: brandx on February 14, 2014, 10:38:05 PM
As opposed to the single mother who has to work 3 jobs and is never home to raise her kids - but the streets are always there to do the job.
Yeah, those poor rich and powerful - they get to make the rules and regulations that keep them rich. I feel so bad. And that isn't a criticism - I would imagine most work very hard and many make a great deal of money for their companies. But sympathy for how hard they have it? Give me a break.
Yes, Chicos is off the rails. If the 1%ers don't want the lifestyle they have, they can retire and never have to work again. That's not the same kind of pressure felt by one income parents whose job is in jeopardy through no fault of their own.
But let's feel sorry for the 1%ers who must get divorced? What?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 14, 2014, 08:55:02 PM
He's getting paid for performance...much of the compensation is bonus based as well as a deferred pension that he delayed a few years ago so some of the 99%ers could be paid in full. Funny how that part of the story is left out in some of these stories.
He delivered, he was rewarded. Personally, I like that structure from an incentive perspective and from a results perspective. Those that get paid regardless of performance...that's all too often skating.
Good for him. Tired of all the penis and class envy in this country. Not many people in this world can do what he did, thus he will get paid as though only a handful of people can do it....which is the case. Supply and demand. That pisses people off, but that's the deal. Millions of teachers, millions of accountants, millions of marketers, etc, etc, but only a handful are truly excellent in these types of roles.
Supply and demand? In this country? That's a good one. There's a reason upward mobility in this country is extremely difficult regardless of how hard one works. The 1%ers don't want people crowding their space. When you create the rules, it's easy living. Act like the Koch brothers aren't doing everything in their power to control every aspect of the country they possibly can.
Society and culture are way too focused on the almighty dollar and it influences lives way too much.
LOL. Those poor rich people are being persecuted again
http://business.time.com/2014/02/14/tom-perkins-taxes/
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 14, 2014, 10:10:57 PM
Hire the right CEO, the value of the company goes up considerably. Its really that simple. My current CEO came in when we were trading at about $29 if I recall. Today we are at $72. That is worth BILLIONS.
Hire the wrong CEO, the value of the company tanks. Board of directors fires him. He walks away with 8-figure severance.
This is costing shareholders BILLIONS and tens of thousands of people their jobs.
This is what infuriates people.
Most people don't begrudge the super successful CEO who earns millions of dollars. They do begrudge the utter lack of accountability, and a rigged system in which boards of directors consisting of other CEOs propagate a scheme by which they're all guaranteed to walk away rich regardless of whether or not they succeed.
Quote from: Pakuni on February 16, 2014, 05:43:34 PM
Hire the wrong CEO, the value of the company tanks. Board of directors fires him. He walks away with 8-figure severance.
This is costing shareholders BILLIONS and tens of thousands of people their jobs.
This is what infuriates people. Most people don't begrudge the super successful CEO who earns millions of dollars. They do begrudge the utter lack of accountability, and a rigged system in which boards of directors consisting of other CEOs propagate a scheme by which they're all guaranteed to walk away rich regardless of whether or not they succeed.
I don't disagree with you. Though you make it sound like in the process of "tanking" that this is all they did...tank it. Hardly the case. The CEO is still working his\her balls off, but it doesn't always work. By taking the gig, they are going to get the $$$ regardless, but they will get MORE if they do well. It's a tough job, more difficult than the "infuriated ones" give credit for. And yes, they are guaranteed to walk away rich. Name me a pro football player drafted in the first 2 rounds, whether he is a total bust or not, that doesn't walk away with a lot of money? A NBA coach, a college coach at a major high level program. That's the deal, like it or not, that's the deal. You get paid for the hell storm you walk into and the job you have to do. If you fail, you get paid....because of that hell storm. If you succeed, you get paid a lot more.
People can get infuriated over many things....paying for people not to work who purposely give up on work to suckle on the teat infuriates people, too, especially those having to pay for suckling.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 16, 2014, 07:30:49 PM
I don't disagree with you. Though you make it sound like in the process of "tanking" that this is all they did...tank it. Hardly the case. The CEO is still working his\her balls off, but it doesn't always work. By taking the gig, they are going to get the $$$ regardless, but they will get MORE if they do well. It's a tough job, more difficult than the "infuriated ones" give credit for. And yes, they are guaranteed to walk away rich. Name me a pro football player drafted in the first 2 rounds, whether he is a total bust or not, that doesn't walk away with a lot of money? A NBA coach, a college coach at a major high level program. That's the deal, like it or not, that's the deal. You get paid for the hell storm you walk into and the job you have to do. If you fail, you get paid....because of that hell storm. If you succeed, you get paid a lot more.
People can get infuriated over many things....paying for people not to work who purposely give up on work to suckle on the teat infuriates people, too, especially those having to pay for suckling.
My annoyance comes with the situation that these CEOs have had their pay significantly increased in the past 20-30 years compared to the average employee working for them. The gap keeps widening. Are CEOs now working harder than they were 20 years ago? Are they working harder compared to their employees now or 20 years ago? Why is one situation increasingly exponentially compared to the other? There always seems to be a reason or excuse for why employee pay stagnates vs executives.