I don't understand your first comment. It has NOTHING to do with the discussion. The Packers have enough money to pay premium dollars for coaches that deserve it. That was the discussion.
Of course it has everything to do with the discussion. The Packers being the team in the smallest market and the only one without a wealthy owner definitely don't want to be the one driving up the prices for coaches and executives.
Nobody argued that LaFleur should have been a top-paid coach when he came here.
You posted that you don't understand MLF not being in the top 10 of coaches salaries. I'm quite sure most of the lists out there don't contain any information about his newly signed extension. In addition you need to be aware that there's no reliable information about it as most of the numbers are estimated.
I honestly think that you just read posts and try to think of arguments to make because you are bored.
In my opinion it's the point of a forum to discuss different point of views. It would be awfully boring if everybody agreed with everything being posted.
Since you brought it up, I agree that LaFleur was paid appropriately as a young, rookie head coach. Now that he has guided them to three successful seasons I think that even his pay bump was appropriate. He shouldn't be making Super Bowl winning coach money, but he should be close based on his level of success thus far. I think that the only non-SB-winning coaches paid more than LaFleur are Kingsbury, Rivera, and Rhule.
Well, so what's the point about complaining the Packers lowballing coaches? MLF seems happy about the contract being offered and for all I care that's the only thing that matters.
I don't deny what you're saying, but why don't they have the money other teams do? They're one of the most popular teams in the league, so surely their merch must sell well. And they sell out routinely. So what is the source of the money gap?
That's pretty easy to answer. The Packers don't have an owner who is filhty rich.
Idk. Speculating though that 6 of the top 11 are the most populated Metro areas. Dallas #1 NY Giants #3,
NY Jets #8, Los Angeles #4,
Chicago #7 Houston #11
Also at the top #2 Patriots for obvious reasons.
D.C. #5 San Fran #6, Philly #9, Denver #10 aren’t exactly small metro areas.
I’m guessing pure population has a big part of that. Considering GB is #13 though that’s still pretty stellar for the smallest population center.
While the Packers are valued slightly above the league average they don't have an owner who could bail them out if they made operational losses.
That's what I meant by mentioning that they don't have as much money as other teams.