“LAST CAPPED YEAR” LOOKS TO BE A NEAR CERTAINTY (1 Viewer)

[Marvelous]

“LAST CAPPED YEAR” LOOKS TO BE A NEAR CERTAINTYPosted by Mike Florio on January 12, 2009, 1:36 p.m. EST Three years ago, the NFL and the NFL Players Association worked out a new Collective Bargaining Agreement on the brink of a new league year. In fact, the two sides agreed to delay the start of the new league year on a couple of occasions in order to get a deal done.Some people think that the goal was to avoid the beginning of the long-dreaded “uncapped year.”It wasn’t. The goal was to avoid the last year with a salary cap, since it involves accounting rules that make it harder for the teams to keep and sign players. The thinking was that, once the teams dealt with the major headaches of the last capped year, they would have been more inclined to tolerate an uncapped year.This time around, the last capped year is less than two months away. But there’s no sense of urgency to get a deal done.In our view, there are several reasons for this drastically different dynamic. First, the union still doesn’t have a replacement at Executive Director for the late Gene Upshaw. Until a new Executive Director is hired, meaningful discussions simply can’t occur. (The new Executive Director likely will be picked in March.)Second, the last time around teams were limited in the last capped year to a four-year proration of signing bonus money for draft picks, which would have made it much harder to sign first-round selections, since more cap space in the current year would have been used. This time around, a five-year proration will apply.Third, teams aren’t spending to the cap limit like they used to. And with the $123 million per-team cap number already set due to the two-year “pegging” of the number based on projected revenues, the economic downturn will make many teams less willing or able to scrape the spending ceiling.As a result, it’s no surprise that interim Executive Director Richard Berthelsen has advised the rank-and-file that negotiations will commence “later this year” on a new CBA.It appears, then, that the teams are far more willing to accept a “last capped year” than they were in 2006, even if it will be very hard for some of them to get or stay under the spending limit. The question then becomes whether putting up with the hard decisions associated with cap compliance in 2009 will make those teams more inclined to have a system without a spending maximum in 2010.Then again, there’s also a chance that more than a few teams would like to have a season without a spending minimum, and that’s another widely overlooked reality of the looming year without a salary cap.

Wow. Hard to believe the NFL could really end up with no salary cap.

 

[jonessed]

That would pretty much be the end of the tremendous growth they have been seeing. They don't have the luxury of going overseas like the NBA and MLB.

 

[David Yudkin]

Makes you wonder what impact this will have on contracts moving forward and if how those contracts would have to be applied to a new salary cap if they make one.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I thought I covered this reasonably well:

Hot Reads - Week 16

Hot Reads - Week 17

 

[Mark Wimer]

I thought I covered this reasonably well:

Hot Reads - Week 16

Hot Reads - Week 17

There are a couple of factors in play regarding the NFL's credit facility which may make a lockout in 2011 problematic for the owners: Article 1

The NFL rolled its $1.4 billion credit line into a four-year term loan, meaning that unless the deal is refinanced, the league will have to pay back $350 million in 2011, the year the sport could be locking out its players, and the remainder of the loan in 2012.

The deal’s structure could also mean that some teams, in anticipation of the principal payments, could begin setting aside cash by 2010, the year there would be no salary cap if the league’s labor deal were not renewed before that season.

My understanding from a friend who is much more knowledgable than I about finance is that the league couldn't get short-term financing due to the collapse of Lehman Brothers. Instead, they had to agree to a loan with an amortization schedule for the debt - which has to be repaid over 2 years starting in 2011 (at roughly $350 million that year, plus 1.05 billion in 2012). However, not all teams draw on the credit line - Cincinnati, for example, is a cash-positive franchise that avoids using the facility entirely. On the other hand, the Cowboys freely draw on the credit facility. So, what that means is that the Cowboys will owe some fairly significant portion of the $350 million amortization schedule in 2011 if the league can't come up with a refinancing of the package after the credit markets unfreeze (assuming they do, and assuming that the league's probable inclination towards a lockout doesn't make creditors unwilling to redo the financing). The bottom line here is that the Cowboys (or the Redskins, etc) may not have such deep pockets as everyone expects due to their drawing on the league's credit line and their possible obligation to meet the amortization schedule starting in 2011.

The NFL’s credit facility came up for renewal on Oct. 31. Roughly half the league’s teams borrow from the loan pool, which by collectively bundling the league’s credit, allows the clubs to tap cheaper loans than they otherwise would have.

Under normal circumstances, the league would have just refinanced the deal, as it does most years. The ongoing turmoil of the financial markets, however, created a different situation.

While the sport could have refinanced, sources said, it chose instead to allow the loan pool to “term out,” meaning the existing debt transformed into the loan. Under conditions of a term-out, the loan will typically amortize quickly. The NFL, because of its strong credit standing, has a more lenient amortization schedule in that the first principal payments are not due until 2011, giving the league plenty of time to refinance.

The league could have borrowed at higher rates instead of terming out, but because the credit facility was arranged in better days, the term loan has rates that are at most 0.75 percent over the London Interbank Offered Rate, which was trading at 2.39 percent last week.

“It would be misleading to state we took the 4-year term option because we could not get the amount of money we wanted,” a league spokesman wrote in an e-mail.

The league does hope to refinance, and Fitch Ratings, in affirming its “A” grade on the debt, said it expected a new deal.

As I stated above, though, the strong possibility of a lockout in 2011 may make lenders unwilling to refinance the 4-year amortization schedule, thus putting many of the owners (the free spending ones with a cash-negative flow) in a position where they cannot afford to go without a year of revenues (as they will still owe their share of the $350 million due on the leagues' credit line). IF the league can't refinance the facility, teams who owe payments on the amortization schedule may need to start setting aside monies in 2010 (as indicated in the article), meaning they wouldn't be able to spend up to the cap in 2010, either.

It all depends on what deal the league can come up with during 2009 (regarding those teams that have drawn on the credit facility).

Additionally, cost over-runs on the Cowboy's new stadium may make Jerry Jones very unwilling to see a lockout in 2011, as he has had a very rough time securing financing to finish the stadium and may not be able to afford a year without revenue. He had to finance the final $350 million to finish the new stadium in December 2008 (during the deepest period of the credit freeze) and may have had to agree to very unfavorable terms (to his franchise, I mean). I couldn't find any articles that outlined what financing, if any, Jones came up with in December.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

Awesome. Now Jerry Jones can ruin football like George Steinbrenner ruined baseball.

 

[roarlions]

I thought I covered this reasonably well:

Hot Reads - Week 16

Hot Reads - Week 17

I would have enjoyed the week 17 article a lot more if you had omitted the 'Sweatin' To The Finish' section at the beginning. Signed,

Disgruntled 1.5 point loser in the championship game referred to in article

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Awesome. Now Jerry Jones can ruin football like George Steinbrenner ruined baseball.

George bought the team in the 70's. I'm thinking league attendence and revenue are higher now, so I really don't know what you are referring to. Unless it's the totally unwatchable crap football that was the NFL during the Lombardi years, or Steel-Curtain, Cowboys, 49ers, Giants years of the 70's and 80's through the early 90's. I mean, that was awfully boring football, wasn't it?For me, I really don't care if the NFL keeps the cap or not.

 

[Die]

Awesome. Now Jerry Jones can ruin football like George Steinbrenner ruined baseball.

George bought the team in the 70's. I'm thinking league attendence and revenue are higher now, so I really don't know what you are referring to. Unless it's the totally unwatchable crap football that was the NFL during the Lombardi years, or Steel-Curtain, Cowboys, 49ers, Giants years of the 70's and 80's through the early 90's. I mean, that was awfully boring football, wasn't it?For me, I really don't care if the NFL keeps the cap or not.

On the other hand, TV ratings have fallen since Steinbrenner took control of the Yankees. Not even the Yankees run in the late 90s stopped the slide. The last 4 world series from 05-08 have been the weakest ever for ratings.http://www.baseball-almanac.com/ws/wstv.shtml

 

[gump]

Awesome. Now Jerry Jones can ruin football like George Steinbrenner ruined baseball.

George bought the team in the 70's. I'm thinking league attendence and revenue are higher now, so I really don't know what you are referring to. Unless it's the totally unwatchable crap football that was the NFL during the Lombardi years, or Steel-Curtain, Cowboys, 49ers, Giants years of the 70's and 80's through the early 90's. I mean, that was awfully boring football, wasn't it?

Agree...the NFL would love another dynasty.

 

[Duke1948]

Awesome. Now Jerry Jones can ruin football like George Steinbrenner ruined baseball.

George bought the team in the 70's. I'm thinking league attendence and revenue are higher now, so I really don't know what you are referring to. Unless it's the totally unwatchable crap football that was the NFL during the Lombardi years, or Steel-Curtain, Cowboys, 49ers, Giants years of the 70's and 80's through the early 90's. I mean, that was awfully boring football, wasn't it?

For me, I really don't care if the NFL keeps the cap or not.

are you mad.....absolutely some of the best football, just because the score was 17-10 doens't mean it was boring.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

Awesome. Now Jerry Jones can ruin football like George Steinbrenner ruined baseball.

George bought the team in the 70's. I'm thinking league attendence and revenue are higher now, so I really don't know what you are referring to. Unless it's the totally unwatchable crap football that was the NFL during the Lombardi years, or Steel-Curtain, Cowboys, 49ers, Giants years of the 70's and 80's through the early 90's. I mean, that was awfully boring football, wasn't it?

Agree...the NFL would love another dynasty.

Riiiiiiiiight. All that stuff about parity that the last two commisioners have preached about was just a ruse for their secret desire for the exact opposite.Re: Steinbrenner, if you don't see a problem with NY spending A HALF A BILLION DOLLARS signing a handful of free agents this year when 9 out of 10 teams have a roster payroll 25% of that number, then we see things differently. Sadly, as a Red Sox fan, I realize that the only reason that the Sawx broke the 1918 curse was because they adopted a "if you can't beat em join em" strategy and went on a mad spending spree. Spending your way to victory is sad. Thankfully, each year there are one or two teams that rise above the 80% of the league which is mediocre to fight the evil empire, but structurally speaking it's not right, even with the "luxury tax".

 

[gump]

Awesome. Now Jerry Jones can ruin football like George Steinbrenner ruined baseball.

George bought the team in the 70's. I'm thinking league attendence and revenue are higher now, so I really don't know what you are referring to. Unless it's the totally unwatchable crap football that was the NFL during the Lombardi years, or Steel-Curtain, Cowboys, 49ers, Giants years of the 70's and 80's through the early 90's. I mean, that was awfully boring football, wasn't it?

Agree...the NFL would love another dynasty.

Riiiiiiiiight. All that stuff about parity that the last two commisioners have preached about was just a ruse for their secret desire for the exact opposite.

Parity is one thing. Mediocrity is another.

 

[footballsavvy]

Please leave the salary cap. The more strategy that is involved, the better. NFL is gaining more and more fans every year and I have enjoyed the growth. Living in an Alabama college town I am one of the few NFL fans, but it seems that with every season that passes, more and more people are seeing the light.... especially with the BCS showing no signs of relaxing its grip on college football.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

Awesome. Now Jerry Jones can ruin football like George Steinbrenner ruined baseball.

George bought the team in the 70's. I'm thinking league attendence and revenue are higher now, so I really don't know what you are referring to. Unless it's the totally unwatchable crap football that was the NFL during the Lombardi years, or Steel-Curtain, Cowboys, 49ers, Giants years of the 70's and 80's through the early 90's. I mean, that was awfully boring football, wasn't it?

Agree...the NFL would love another dynasty.

Riiiiiiiiight. All that stuff about parity that the last two commisioners have preached about was just a ruse for their secret desire for the exact opposite.

Parity is one thing. Mediocrity is another.

I agree, but note that the NFL is ridiculously successful right now, and although some pundits like to point to mediocrity as a problem, the fans don't look at it that way. Do you think Cardinals fans will be concerned about the taint of mediocrity if they win the superbowl? Of course not.

 

[gump]

Awesome. Now Jerry Jones can ruin football like George Steinbrenner ruined baseball.

George bought the team in the 70's. I'm thinking league attendence and revenue are higher now, so I really don't know what you are referring to. Unless it's the totally unwatchable crap football that was the NFL during the Lombardi years, or Steel-Curtain, Cowboys, 49ers, Giants years of the 70's and 80's through the early 90's. I mean, that was awfully boring football, wasn't it?

Agree...the NFL would love another dynasty.

Riiiiiiiiight. All that stuff about parity that the last two commisioners have preached about was just a ruse for their secret desire for the exact opposite.

Parity is one thing. Mediocrity is another.

I agree, but note that the NFL is ridiculously successful right now, and although some pundits like to point to mediocrity as a problem, the fans don't look at it that way. Do you think Cardinals fans will be concerned about the taint of mediocrity if they win the superbowl? Of course not.

I just think things may be changing. Do you think the NFL would rather have a 5-year SB Champ run of Cards, Ravens, Falcons, Dolphins, and Panthers....or the Cowboys win 3 of those 5 years? Most of these NFL markets are built...now they need teams that fans love and hate...but draw interest either way.

 

[CrossEyed]

Awesome. Now Jerry Jones can ruin football like George Steinbrenner ruined baseball.

George bought the team in the 70's. I'm thinking league attendence and revenue are higher now, so I really don't know what you are referring to. Unless it's the totally unwatchable crap football that was the NFL during the Lombardi years, or Steel-Curtain, Cowboys, 49ers, Giants years of the 70's and 80's through the early 90's. I mean, that was awfully boring football, wasn't it?

For me, I really don't care if the NFL keeps the cap or not.

are you mad.....absolutely some of the best football, just because the score was 17-10 doens't mean it was boring.

I think you need to check your sarcasm detector.

 

[CrossEyed]

I think eliminating the cap would be a disaster for the NFL.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

Awesome. Now Jerry Jones can ruin football like George Steinbrenner ruined baseball.

George bought the team in the 70's. I'm thinking league attendence and revenue are higher now, so I really don't know what you are referring to. Unless it's the totally unwatchable crap football that was the NFL during the Lombardi years, or Steel-Curtain, Cowboys, 49ers, Giants years of the 70's and 80's through the early 90's. I mean, that was awfully boring football, wasn't it?

Agree...the NFL would love another dynasty.

Riiiiiiiiight. All that stuff about parity that the last two commisioners have preached about was just a ruse for their secret desire for the exact opposite.

Parity is one thing. Mediocrity is another.

I agree, but note that the NFL is ridiculously successful right now, and although some pundits like to point to mediocrity as a problem, the fans don't look at it that way. Do you think Cardinals fans will be concerned about the taint of mediocrity if they win the superbowl? Of course not.

I just think things may be changing. Do you think the NFL would rather have a 5-year SB Champ run of Cards, Ravens, Falcons, Dolphins, and Panthers....or the Cowboys win 3 of those 5 years? Most of these NFL markets are built...now they need teams that fans love and hate...but draw interest either way.

I would GUESS, although I admit I don't know, that the majority of owners would not be in favor of eliminating the cap. I think Jerry would make arguments similar to what you're saying, but the fact that the current and prior commissioners have played the parity card pretty heavily indicates to me that Jerry would end up losing such a debate. Having said that, I would have no objection to the Patriots winning 3 of the next 5 superbowls....

 

[cacksman]

The NFL needs to keep its salary cap.

That said, if they end the cap for a few years, my team has the richest owner (by far) in the entire league.

To compare, Paul Allen has over 10x the money that Jerry Jones has.

 

[David Yudkin]

From a dollars and sense perspective, with all teams getting the same amount of tv revenue, how would big market and/or rich owner teams be able to pull a NY Yankees?

I understand that teams can spend whatever they want, but where are they going to get the extra money from? Won't owners want to continue to make money? Will they intentionally lose money? Not sure how far that goes . . .

 

[-baller]

ask al davis.

I would imagine that some owners count on the team's income a little more heavily than others, while some have a strong source of outside income and are in it as much for the prestige as the money, having a higher tolerance for lower margin.

if a guy like jerry jones already draws heavily on the nfl loan pool, what's to stop him from abusing it even more thinking he can buy championships and snowball revenue from his new stadium, while some smaller family owned teams are just looking to make a buck in older stadiums?

all it takes is one nut to throw money at a player and get the entire negotiating class out of whack.

on the flip side, if you've got all this tv revenue locked in, what's a smaller family owned team's incentive to burn money keeping up w/the joneses?

 

[Novice2]

So is there is no cap then the whole arguement of rookies being over paid and no $ for proven vets goes out the window right?

 

[elpasotexan]

From a dollars and sense perspective, with all teams getting the same amount of tv revenue, how would big market and/or rich owner teams be able to pull a NY Yankees?I understand that teams can spend whatever they want, but where are they going to get the extra money from? Won't owners want to continue to make money? Will they intentionally lose money? Not sure how far that goes . . .

Saw an Outside the Lines a few weeks ago where a Greek tycoon who owned a European league basketball team was paying more for mediocre NBA guys than the NBA was. Other European teams were afraid he would spend them into the ground. The tycoon didnt care if he was losing money hand over fist - he just wanted to win, To some people championships take precedent over money. That could happen in the NFL.

 

[Marvelous]

Awesome. Now Jerry Jones can ruin football like George Steinbrenner ruined baseball.

George bought the team in the 70's. I'm thinking league attendence and revenue are higher now, so I really don't know what you are referring to. Unless it's the totally unwatchable crap football that was the NFL during the Lombardi years, or Steel-Curtain, Cowboys, 49ers, Giants years of the 70's and 80's through the early 90's. I mean, that was awfully boring football, wasn't it?

Agree...the NFL would love another dynasty.

Riiiiiiiiight. All that stuff about parity that the last two commisioners have preached about was just a ruse for their secret desire for the exact opposite.

Parity is one thing. Mediocrity is another.

I agree, but note that the NFL is ridiculously successful right now, and although some pundits like to point to mediocrity as a problem, the fans don't look at it that way. Do you think Cardinals fans will be concerned about the taint of mediocrity if they win the superbowl? Of course not.

I just think things may be changing. Do you think the NFL would rather have a 5-year SB Champ run of Cards, Ravens, Falcons, Dolphins, and Panthers....or the Cowboys win 3 of those 5 years? Most of these NFL markets are built...now they need teams that fans love and hate...but draw interest either way.

I would GUESS, although I admit I don't know, that the majority of owners would not be in favor of eliminating the cap. I think Jerry would make arguments similar to what you're saying, but the fact that the current and prior commissioners have played the parity card pretty heavily indicates to me that Jerry would end up losing such a debate. Having said that, I would have no objection to the Patriots winning 3 of the next 5 superbowls....

One point you may not have noticed in the article: there will also be no salary floor. So teams like Cincinnati and Buffalo can spend a little as they want and still bring in 1/32 of the tv revenues.

 

[Marvelous]

From a dollars and sense perspective, with all teams getting the same amount of tv revenue, how would big market and/or rich owner teams be able to pull a NY Yankees?I understand that teams can spend whatever they want, but where are they going to get the extra money from? Won't owners want to continue to make money? Will they intentionally lose money? Not sure how far that goes . . .

Some teams have more in other revenue streams. Dan Snyder has been great and developing other revenue streams based on the Redskin brand. Snyder has also opened a number of Redskin stores to sell merchandise and owns a network of radio stations. He is also negotiating on building a Redskin Hall of Fame. He wants to attach the Redskin name to everything and turn it into a profit center.

 

[David Yudkin]

From a dollars and sense perspective, with all teams getting the same amount of tv revenue, how would big market and/or rich owner teams be able to pull a NY Yankees?I understand that teams can spend whatever they want, but where are they going to get the extra money from? Won't owners want to continue to make money? Will they intentionally lose money? Not sure how far that goes . . .

Some teams have more in other revenue streams. Dan Snyder has been great and developing other revenue streams based on the Redskin brand. Snyder has also opened a number of Redskin stores to sell merchandise and owns a network of radio stations. He is also negotiating on building a Redskin Hall of Fame. He wants to attach the Redskin name to everything and turn it into a profit center.

Doesn't the NFL get the merchandising revenue and redistribute it back to the teams?

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

From a dollars and sense perspective, with all teams getting the same amount of tv revenue, how would big market and/or rich owner teams be able to pull a NY Yankees?I understand that teams can spend whatever they want, but where are they going to get the extra money from? Won't owners want to continue to make money? Will they intentionally lose money? Not sure how far that goes . . .

Some teams have more in other revenue streams. Dan Snyder has been great and developing other revenue streams based on the Redskin brand. Snyder has also opened a number of Redskin stores to sell merchandise and owns a network of radio stations. He is also negotiating on building a Redskin Hall of Fame. He wants to attach the Redskin name to everything and turn it into a profit center.

Doesn't the NFL get the merchandising revenue and redistribute it back to the teams?

Tickets. Yes.TV rights. Yes.Merchandising. Yes.Local ads. No.Local preseason. No.Radio - I don't believe so.Stadium naming rights / sales of name. No.Anything else they can think to sell or brand with the team. No.So when FedEx names the field, Dan Snyder gets the money.

 

[Marvelous]

From a dollars and sense perspective, with all teams getting the same amount of tv revenue, how would big market and/or rich owner teams be able to pull a NY Yankees?

I understand that teams can spend whatever they want, but where are they going to get the extra money from? Won't owners want to continue to make money? Will they intentionally lose money? Not sure how far that goes . . .

Some teams have more in other revenue streams. Dan Snyder has been great and developing other revenue streams based on the Redskin brand. Snyder has also opened a number of Redskin stores to sell merchandise and owns a network of radio stations. He is also negotiating on building a Redskin Hall of Fame. He wants to attach the Redskin name to everything and turn it into a profit center.

Doesn't the NFL get the merchandising revenue and redistribute it back to the teams?

Tickets. Yes.TV rights. Yes.

Merchandising. Yes.

Local ads. No.

Local preseason. No.

Radio - I don't believe so.

Stadium naming rights / sales of name. No.

Anything else they can think to sell or brand with the team. No.

So when FedEx names the field, Dan Snyder gets the money.

I found a link with some info, although I cannot vouch for how accurate it its.Link

As the article notes, I thought ticket sales were split (60/40) with the visiting team. And concessions are not shared or shared slightly with the visiting team. REvenue from luxury boxes are not shared, so new stadiums must have lots of these.

There must be merchandise (other than jerseys) that are not shared. Otherwise, I can't see why Snyder would have opened all though Redskin stores.

 

[David Yudkin]

From a dollars and sense perspective, with all teams getting the same amount of tv revenue, how would big market and/or rich owner teams be able to pull a NY Yankees?

I understand that teams can spend whatever they want, but where are they going to get the extra money from? Won't owners want to continue to make money? Will they intentionally lose money? Not sure how far that goes . . .

Some teams have more in other revenue streams. Dan Snyder has been great and developing other revenue streams based on the Redskin brand. Snyder has also opened a number of Redskin stores to sell merchandise and owns a network of radio stations. He is also negotiating on building a Redskin Hall of Fame. He wants to attach the Redskin name to everything and turn it into a profit center.

Doesn't the NFL get the merchandising revenue and redistribute it back to the teams?

Tickets. Yes.TV rights. Yes.

Merchandising. Yes.

Local ads. No.

Local preseason. No.

Radio - I don't believe so.

Stadium naming rights / sales of name. No.

Anything else they can think to sell or brand with the team. No.

So when FedEx names the field, Dan Snyder gets the money.

I found a link with some info, although I cannot vouch for how accurate it its.Link

As the article notes, I thought ticket sales were split (60/40) with the visiting team. And concessions are not shared or shared slightly with the visiting team. REvenue from luxury boxes are not shared, so new stadiums must have lots of these.

There must be merchandise (other than jerseys) that are not shared. Otherwise, I can't see why Snyder would have opened all though Redskin stores.

My point was that there's only so much a team can do to generate more revenue. Teams only get 8 regular season home games, 2 preseason games, and a chance at a postseason game or two. And most teams sell out as it is, so ticket sales in terms of number of tickets sold wouldn't change much. (Total sales volume could go up if teams jacked up ticket prices.)I know teams can chose to get more ad revenue from their stadiums (the Cowboys have done this including advertising from competitors to game sponsors that got people in a tizzy.)

Overall, I'm not sure we'd see too many teams shelling out $200+ million in salaries like the Yankees in baseball.

 

[gump]

Don't forget that the Cowboys are NOT a member of NFL Properties. They are the only team that doesn't share revenue from licensed product.

That was a disaster the first few years he did it....now that the Cowboys are back to 20% of total NFL sales, it's genius.

Snyder, Davis, and others have discussed doing this also.

 

[gump]

There must be merchandise (other than jerseys) that are not shared. Otherwise, I can't see why Snyder would have opened all though Redskin stores.

There isn't any other revenue generator for these 'Skins stores (Raiders and Falcons have also opened their own stores) that's not shared. The Raiders and Falcons both have a "company" that runs their websites...so not sure they share 100%...but the Skins do.But it's not about the money in this case.These teams feel their brands are big enough to move beyond the stadium walls and into the community. They also want full control over their brand and it's image. A 3rd-party concessionaire is not trust-worthy, and usually has a higher markup anyway (bc of the % they have to pay to the team). So if the team has the resources and hires people that know retail, they can "build the brand"...and make a little more money.It also helps visibility during the offseason, opens up opportunities for marketing promos with tickets, etc.

 

[CrossEyed]

TAMPA, Fla. - Steelers chairman Dan Rooney hopes that the owners and players will reach a labor agreement before the 2010 season.But Rooney said there is a "definite possibility" that a chasm between the two sides could eventually lead to the small-market Steelers having to compete in a league without spending limits.The players and owners remain far apart on a new collective bargaining agreement, and commissioner Roger Goodell dismissed a study released by the NFL Players Association that said the league is awash in money."There is a lot of fiction in that report," Goodell said Thursday of the study that claims NFL owners made an average of almost $25 million last season.If a new collective bargaining agreement isn't reached before the end of next season, the 2010 season will be played without a salary cap. If that happens, the NFLPA has said it will never agree to another deal that has a salary cap.The two sides can't engage in any serious negotiations until the NFLPA settles on a successor to former union boss Gene Upshaw, who died in August. The NFLPA is expected to elect a new executive director in March."As the commissioner said, we'll work with that person, and hopefully it is someone that is workable and is looking at the game the way Gene Upshaw did," Rooney said. "Unless we get people to sit down and be reasonable and work things out, anything can happen."Unhappy with a deal that gives the players roughly 60 percent of gross revenues, the owners in May voided the final two years of the collective bargaining agreement. That could lead to a lockout in 2011.The NFLPA maintained it is willing to work toward a new agreement but remained firm that it will not make the concessions the owners are seeking.An NFLPA-commissioned study found that teams averaged $24.7 million in profits last season, and the value of NFL franchises has grown from $288 million to a little more than $1 billion in the past 10 years."The revenue pie has continued to grow, and the players see no reason why their slice of the pie should be any smaller," NFLPA interim executive director Richard Berthelsen said.Goodell called the NFLPA figures regarding owners' profits last year "completely inaccurate."Berthelsen said the players have amassed more than $200 million in an emergency fund in the event of a lockout."This is a good thing we've got going between the players and owners," said new NFLPA president Kevin Mawae, who plays center for the Tennessee Titans. "But players understand the implications of what could happen, and I believe we'll stand together, because without the players, there is no NFL. Hopefully we won't have to get to that point."The league has enjoyed labor peace since 1987, and Rooney said it is too early to fret about a work stoppage or the potential loss of the salary cap.He added that most deals, in any negotiations, don't get done until right before a deadline."We have to get to the (bargaining) table," Rooney said."I am optimistic that we're going to be able to sit down with the union and reach an agreement," Goodell said.

Personally, I think this would ruin the NFL for me. MLB is a joke and the NFL would most likely be right behind it without a cap.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I think the salary cap (and especially the salary floor) are probably good things for the NFL, but people are crazy if they think there's parity now. The Pats went 16-0 last year and the Lions went 0-16 this year. Indy has won 12 games or more each of the last six seasons. There used to be parity in the league, but not anymore.

(Not that parity is necessarily a good thing.)

 

[FUBAR]

I think the salary cap (and especially the salary floor) are probably good things for the NFL, but people are crazy if they think there's parity now. The Pats went 16-0 last year and the Lions went 0-16 this year. Indy has won 12 games or more each of the last six seasons. There used to be parity in the league, but not anymore. (Not that parity is necessarily a good thing.)

:X we don't have parity of results, we have parity of opportunity. Kind of like America.

 

[CrossEyed]

I think the salary cap (and especially the salary floor) are probably good things for the NFL, but people are crazy if they think there's parity now. The Pats went 16-0 last year and the Lions went 0-16 this year. Indy has won 12 games or more each of the last six seasons. There used to be parity in the league, but not anymore. (Not that parity is necessarily a good thing.)

:X we don't have parity of results, we have parity of opportunity. Kind of like America.

Exactly. With a salary cap at least there's a level playing field. That doesn't help you if you have no idea how to run a football franchise, but you aren't losing because you are being outspent.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I think the salary cap (and especially the salary floor) are probably good things for the NFL, but people are crazy if they think there's parity now. The Pats went 16-0 last year and the Lions went 0-16 this year. Indy has won 12 games or more each of the last six seasons. There used to be parity in the league, but not anymore. (Not that parity is necessarily a good thing.)

we don't have parity of results, we have parity of opportunity. Kind of like America.

Exactly. With a salary cap at least there's a level playing field. That doesn't help you if you have no idea how to run a football franchise, but you aren't losing because you are being outspent.

Do you think Lions fans are happier that their team stinks because their owner is terrible than if their team stunk because their owner was poor? Seriously?

 

[FUBAR]

I think the salary cap (and especially the salary floor) are probably good things for the NFL, but people are crazy if they think there's parity now. The Pats went 16-0 last year and the Lions went 0-16 this year. Indy has won 12 games or more each of the last six seasons. There used to be parity in the league, but not anymore. (Not that parity is necessarily a good thing.)

we don't have parity of results, we have parity of opportunity. Kind of like America.

Exactly. With a salary cap at least there's a level playing field. That doesn't help you if you have no idea how to run a football franchise, but you aren't losing because you are being outspent.

Do you think Lions fans are happier that their team stinks because their owner is terrible than if their team stunk because their owner was poor? Seriously?

Lions fans aren't going to be happy while the Fords still own the team. But you're ignoring teams like Green Bay, Minnesota, Arizona, Jacksonville, Buffalo, etc.

 

[Gatorman]

I think the salary cap (and especially the salary floor) are probably good things for the NFL, but people are crazy if they think there's parity now. The Pats went 16-0 last year and the Lions went 0-16 this year. Indy has won 12 games or more each of the last six seasons. There used to be parity in the league, but not anymore. (Not that parity is necessarily a good thing.)

we don't have parity of results, we have parity of opportunity. Kind of like America.

Exactly. With a salary cap at least there's a level playing field. That doesn't help you if you have no idea how to run a football franchise, but you aren't losing because you are being outspent.

Do you think Lions fans are happier that their team stinks because their owner is terrible than if their team stunk because their owner was poor? Seriously?

As a dolphin fan (and Marlin Fan): It is nice to have a cap b/c it allows for the same thing to win games on the field as it does in the front office: Brains and a good system. When you can simply throw money at a problem to cover your lack of a plan in y mind, degrades the sport.If there was a salary cap in baseball (with a hard ceiling and floor), the Marlins could be a dynasty b/c of their front office. As it is now, they are a farm team that sometimes gets good enough to contend and then has to "reset" while it sends its best players to the yanks, red sox, and Dodgers.No thanks in Football.

 

[Giantseasonticketholder]

Where have you gone Wellington Mara? A nation turns it's lonely eyes towards you.

Without a cap, the Redskins and the Cowboys would turn into absolute messes. Teams like the Giants and Eagles would still be OK because their philosphies are to build through the draft first.

The NFL already has the easiest union in sports to deal with. The owners get their way every time. Maybe all of you crybabies who bash the Yanks should take a look at the stranglehold the MLB Players union has over it's sport. Don Fehr is much more powerful than Bud Selig.

 

[roadkill1292]

I think the salary cap (and especially the salary floor) are probably good things for the NFL, but people are crazy if they think there's parity now. The Pats went 16-0 last year and the Lions went 0-16 this year. Indy has won 12 games or more each of the last six seasons. There used to be parity in the league, but not anymore. (Not that parity is necessarily a good thing.)

we don't have parity of results, we have parity of opportunity. Kind of like America.

Exactly. With a salary cap at least there's a level playing field. That doesn't help you if you have no idea how to run a football franchise, but you aren't losing because you are being outspent.

Do you think Lions fans are happier that their team stinks because their owner is terrible than if their team stunk because their owner was poor? Seriously?

That's an irrelevant question, Chase. Mr. Ford can always hire brains.As Fubar noted, parity of results is not of paramount importance. Next, the league should kill the draft and really allow the excellent to excel.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I think the salary cap (and especially the salary floor) are probably good things for the NFL, but people are crazy if they think there's parity now. The Pats went 16-0 last year and the Lions went 0-16 this year. Indy has won 12 games or more each of the last six seasons. There used to be parity in the league, but not anymore. (Not that parity is necessarily a good thing.)

we don't have parity of results, we have parity of opportunity. Kind of like America.

Exactly. With a salary cap at least there's a level playing field. That doesn't help you if you have no idea how to run a football franchise, but you aren't losing because you are being outspent.

Do you think Lions fans are happier that their team stinks because their owner is terrible than if their team stunk because their owner was poor? Seriously?

As a dolphin fan (and Marlin Fan): It is nice to have a cap b/c it allows for the same thing to win games on the field as it does in the front office: Brains and a good system. When you can simply throw money at a problem to cover your lack of a plan in y mind, degrades the sport.If there was a salary cap in baseball (with a hard ceiling and floor), the Marlins could be a dynasty b/c of their front office. As it is now, they are a farm team that sometimes gets good enough to contend and then has to "reset" while it sends its best players to the yanks, red sox, and Dodgers.No thanks in Football.

That's true, but it doesn't really change things for fans. If I was a GM, then maybe I'd want a salary cap so I would think I could only blame myself if my team lost. But if I'm a fan, I have no control over who my team is or who my GM is or who my owner is. Pats fans have nothing more to do with winning because of Belichick/Piloi than Yankees fans have to do with winning because they have lots of money. Baseball's also a 162 game sport with a best of seven World Series. So talent levels aside, it's going to be much harder for the worst teams to win it all. If baseball played 16 games and a single elimination playoff, just about any team could win it all.

 

[FavreCo]

I think the salary cap (and especially the salary floor) are probably good things for the NFL, but people are crazy if they think there's parity now. The Pats went 16-0 last year and the Lions went 0-16 this year. Indy has won 12 games or more each of the last six seasons. There used to be parity in the league, but not anymore. (Not that parity is necessarily a good thing.)

You are really confusing 'lack of parity' with incompetance. The Lions went 0-16 because they have been incompetant in evaluating talent. The parity is there BECAUSE of the salary cap. Detroit sucks because they have no clue. Every team had the same chance to sign Randy Moss and Wes Welker. Only 1 team evaluated both correctly, added them to their roster AND used them correctly.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I think the salary cap (and especially the salary floor) are probably good things for the NFL, but people are crazy if they think there's parity now. The Pats went 16-0 last year and the Lions went 0-16 this year. Indy has won 12 games or more each of the last six seasons. There used to be parity in the league, but not anymore. (Not that parity is necessarily a good thing.)

we don't have parity of results, we have parity of opportunity. Kind of like America.

Exactly. With a salary cap at least there's a level playing field. That doesn't help you if you have no idea how to run a football franchise, but you aren't losing because you are being outspent.

Do you think Lions fans are happier that their team stinks because their owner is terrible than if their team stunk because their owner was poor? Seriously?

That's an irrelevant question, Chase. Mr. Ford can always hire brains.

Really? Did you pick up on this based on his hires in the '60s, '70s, '80s, '90s or '00s?

 

[FavreCo]

That's an irrelevant question, Chase. Mr. Ford can always hire brains.

Really? Did you pick up on this based on his hires in the '60s, '70s, '80s, '90s or '00s?

He can (if he had ability). He's just not capable of doing so.

 

[Phurfur]

It is very simple for me, if the cap goes away I will stop watching and never look back.

 

[jonessed]

It is very simple for me, if the cap goes away I will stop watching and never look back.

It would definitely free up time on Sundays which would make my wife happy.I was a huge baseball fan as a kid and up through college before I realized that there were only a few teams I could really root for that would have a shot at winning anything. I don't even watch the playoffs anymore.

 

[renesauz]

It is very simple for me, if the cap goes away I will stop watching and never look back.

It would definitely free up time on Sundays which would make my wife happy.I was a huge baseball fan as a kid and up through college before I realized that there were only a few teams I could really root for that would have a shot at winning anything. I don't even watch the playoffs anymore.

Same here. The lack of competitive balance is slowly killing baseball. I don't even know what I'd do if they let the same thing happen to the NFL.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

It is very simple for me, if the cap goes away I will stop watching and never look back.

It would definitely free up time on Sundays which would make my wife happy.I was a huge baseball fan as a kid and up through college before I realized that there were only a few teams I could really root for that would have a shot at winning anything. I don't even watch the playoffs anymore.

Same here. The lack of competitive balance is slowly killing baseball. I don't even know what I'd do if they let the same thing happen to the NFL.

This isn't remotely close to true, which is par for the course with most baseball bashing that goes on here. But, when did anyone here ever let facts get in their way.

 

[Phurfur]

It is very simple for me, if the cap goes away I will stop watching and never look back.

It would definitely free up time on Sundays which would make my wife happy.I was a huge baseball fan as a kid and up through college before I realized that there were only a few teams I could really root for that would have a shot at winning anything. I don't even watch the playoffs anymore.

Same here. The lack of competitive balance is slowly killing baseball. I don't even know what I'd do if they let the same thing happen to the NFL.

This isn't remotely close to true, which is par for the course with most baseball bashing that goes on here. But, when did anyone here ever let facts get in their way.

Facts don't matter, what does matter is that there are countless baseball fans that don't follow MLB anymore. I don't bash the game because I don't care about it.