CBA DONE? (1 Viewer)

[jgb95]

CBA IS "DONE," BUT . . . .

A league source tells us that a deal between the NFL and the NFL Players Association on an extension to the Collective Bargaining Agreement is "done," and that the only thing keeping the thing from being signed and sealed is the absence of a firm arrangement among owners regarding an expansion of revenue sharing.

The only remaining problem is that the new CBA replaces "Defined Gross Revenues" (i.e., the stuff that has been shared by the 32 teams for years) with "Total Football Revenues" (i.e., every penny earned). And if every penny earned, including stuff that isn't currently shared, goes into the formula for determining the salary cap, the problem is that the low-earning teams will see their individual cap numbers influenced by the much bigger money being raked in by other teams.

Stay tuned. It's looking more and more like it's only a matter of time before the owners work this thing out. As they should.

 

[BlueOnion]

Small market owners, beware because it is not looking good for you.

 

[BigJim®]

Small market owners, beware because it is not looking good for you.

I'm not following this. Any expansion of revenue sharing is great for small market teams because it means "Total Football Revenues" from larger teams would be shared with small market teams to make the salary cap work. Basically, mismanaged teams would be benefiting from better run organizations, and small markets benefitting from large markets. So essentially, the opposite of what you said.

 

[BlueOnion]

Small market owners, beware because it is not looking good for you.

I'm not following this. Any expansion of revenue sharing is great for small market teams because it means "Total Football Revenues" from larger teams would be shared with small market teams to make the salary cap work. Basically mismanaged teams would be benefiting from better run organizations, and small markets benefitting from large markets. So basically, the opposite of what you said.

The quote I am looking at says,

A league source tells us that a deal between the NFL and the NFL Players Association on an extension to the Collective Bargaining Agreement is "done," and that the only thing keeping the thing from being signed and sealed is the absence of a firm arrangement among owners regarding an expansion of revenue sharing.

I didn't interupt an 'arrangement' to equal 'definite revenue sharing' or to what degree revenue sharing will occur.Reading the article leads me to believe the following things have happened:

Local revenue is to be included in the pooled revenue which calculates the salary cap, so I am anticipating a cap of 103 to 106 million. However, the remaining owner's cut is still undecided;

Option 1: Each owners gets an equal cut (32 cuts) of the total revenue.

Option 2: Each owner gets an equal cut (32 cuts) of total national revenues. Each owners gets a proportional cut of local revenue relative to how much they originally contributed.

I suspect it may be option 2, which would mean although a salary cap exists, not all teams will be able to spend up to the cap limit.

Disclaimer - A lot of this is speculation on my part.

 

[BigJim®]

I'm not sure where the story is losing you but they are saying the CBA is only awaiting agreement to further share revenues. In other words, it is expected that this new shared revenues (benefiting small market teams) will occur but simply has not yet. If new revenue sharing is not agreed to, the new CBA agreement (as it currently reads) will be delayed because it presumes a new definition for Gross Revenues. So, the only two possible outcomes are (1) No agreement to further share revenues and delayed CBA (which doesn't hamper small market teams, but does delay a CBA because large market organic revenue streams can't be calculated into "Gross Revenues"), or (2) agreement to further share revenues and CBA done (which does benefit small market teams).

 

[GroveDiesel]

Actually I think that BlueOnion is correct.

The CBA is essentially done because the players and owners have agreed that total revenue will be used in calculating the salary cap. That is the only place that total revenue comes into play. But the NFLPA will not sign the CBA until the owners have agreed amongst themselves how to divy up their own money.

The owners may very well decide to sign an agreement where only the national money is split equally amongst all the teams. Any local and team-specific revenues would be kept by the individual teams and not shared at all.

The NFLPA may then decide to back out of their agreement because small market teams may not be able to spend at the top of the cap anymore, creating less total player salary.

Again, the only agreement concerning total revenue appears to be between the players and the owners, not amongst the owners themselves.

Of course, this is all based on rumor anyway. I'm pretty certain that there were other issues that were still a contention between the NFLPA and the owners, but I may be wrong. The portion of revenue allocated to player salaries was certainly the largest issue.

 

[JaxBill]

I'm not sure where the story is losing you but they are saying the CBA is only awaiting agreement to further share revenues. In other words, it is expected that this new shared revenues (benefiting small market teams) will occur but simply has not yet. If new revenue sharing is not agreed to, the new CBA agreement (as it currently reads) will be delayed because it presumes a new definition for Gross Revenues. So, the only two possible outcomes are (1) No agreement to further share revenues and delayed CBA (which doesn't hamper small market teams, but does delay a CBA because large market organic revenue streams can't be calculated into "Gross Revenues"), or (2) agreement to further share revenues and CBA done (which does benefit small market teams).

It could be a knock-down drag-out fight amongst the owners over revenue sharing. Remember that Dan Rooney and Wayne Weaver tried to get the owners to adopt a revenue-sharing model last summer and were defeated. the large market owners' idea of what they want to share and the small market owners idea of what to share could be completely different.I could easily see the large market owners agreeing to share all revenue except luxury boxes and that wouldn't be good for most small market teams since those luxury would count towards computing the salary cap.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Actually, now that I re-read, this whole thing is worded really strangely. It seems to argue that the only thing left is for the owners to decide on their own revenue sharing, but then makes it seem as if the new CBA already agrees to that. But that's a pretty major issue.

Theoretically you could separate the two as I did in my previous post. The salary cap could be based on the total revenue while the owners would only share the national revenue.

Or they could have sharing the owners based on total revenue as well.

The original post doesn't really make it clear which issue, or possibly both, is still up to the owners to decide. Either way, it doesn't seem like a minor issue.

 

[BigJim®]

Actually I think that BlueOnion is correct.

The CBA is essentially done because the players and owners have agreed that total revenue will be used in calculating the salary cap. That is the only place that total revenue comes into play. But the NFLPA will not sign the CBA until the owners have agreed amongst themselves how to divy up their own money.

The owners may very well decide to sign an agreement where only the national money is split equally amongst all the teams. Any local and team-specific revenues would be kept by the individual teams and not shared at all.

The NFLPA may then decide to back out of their agreement because small market teams may not be able to spend at the top of the cap anymore, creating less total player salary.

Again, the only agreement concerning total revenue appears to be between the players and the owners, not amongst the owners themselves.

Of course, this is all based on rumor anyway. I'm pretty certain that there were other issues that were still a contention between the NFLPA and the owners, but I may be wrong. The portion of revenue allocated to player salaries was certainly the largest issue.

Well, if your point is the CBA may be farther from being done than reported (since major owner agreements are needed) that's fine and I can appreciate that. But, that doesn't support a general "warning to small market teams." Inability for owners to come up with a fair revenue sharing amongst themselves just means all sides will need to go back to the drawing board because this idea can't be agreed upon, it doesn't mean DDay to small market teams. There's no way the 25 smaller market teams will vote in favor of changing the definition of "Gross Revenues" to include revenues they don't reap. But the thinking (I believe) has been that rich owners have such a good thing going that they will eventually share revenues with small market teams simply because they don't want to ruin the good thing they have going.

 

[fatness]

It's not a minor issue left to resolve, but there's an NFL Owners' Meeting which begins, I believe, on March 7, and Paul Tagliabue is expected to do his utmost to finish the meeting with a revenue-sharing agreement between all the teams.

There have been several owners recent, named and unnamed (including Jerry Jones) saying the big-market teams were ready to agree, that an aggreement was close.

The "a firm arrangement among owners regarding an expansion of revenue sharing" cited in the initial post may be nothing more than an agreement by all NFL owners to come out of the Owners' Meeting with an agreement on revenue sharing. Once they've agreed to agree on that within a definite short timeframe (at the Owners Meeting), I think Tagliabue can pull off an agreement on numbers.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Ok, this is what I heard on SportsTalk 950 in Philly on the way home today:

The deal with the union is essentially done. The players will, in fact, be receiving a percentage of the total football revenue instead of the national revenue as in the past.

The sticking point is the revenue sharing amongst the owners. For whatever reason, Gene Upshaw refuses to have the players agree to the new CBA until the owners have agreed on the revenue sharing for the owners. There really isn't a clear reason why as there doesn't seem to be any impact on the players. It was speculated that Upshaw is actually doing it as a favor to Tagliabue since they are good friends.

Make no mistake, while something probably will get done, this is no small issue. We're potentially talking about tens of millions of dollars here. A team like the Washington Redskins or the New York Giants makes a heck of a lot more money than the Buffalo Bills or the Cleveland Browns.

IMO, the best solution for the owners is to probably to throw a flat percentage from team-specific revenues into a pot and then divide it up equally amongst all the teams. So if 20% of each team's profits goes into the pot, you force some revenue sharing while still rewarding good owners.

 

[The Hank]

 

[Bri]

that's a major issue, not some small minor point to hash out

 

[coolnerd]

sportsradio espn790 is reporting that the owners are going to have a "conference call" on Tuesday

No link and no time for me to hunt one.

 

[Mungo Burrows]

The sticking point is the revenue sharing amongst the owners. For whatever reason, Gene Upshaw refuses to have the players agree to the new CBA until the owners have agreed on the revenue sharing for the owners. There really isn't a clear reason why as there doesn't seem to be any impact on the players. It was speculated that Upshaw is actually doing it as a favor to Tagliabue since they are good friends.

1) The players association DOES have an interest in seeing expanded revenue sharing in place. if they stick with the current revenue sharing, several small market (or should I say "small revenue" teams) will not be able to consistently spend up to the new expanded salary cap. Right now, the shared national revenue covers the cap, and they can use their local revenues for front office, facilities and other expenses and still make a profit. If the cap goes up by 15%, but they still only get ~$90mil from shared revenue, the local revenues will not make up the difference in player salaries, plus the other expenses (and of course profit). Since the big money teams won't be able to exceed the cap to make up the difference, there will be less total money available to the players because not all teams will spend up to the cap.2) One of the theories behind Upshaw standing up for this is that he wants to get in Tags' and the NFL's good graces so he can be the next commissioner. Not that that would be a conflict of interest, or anything.

 

[Class Dismissed]

Super Bowl Memorabilia Sales are up 5 fold from last year, from 30 million to 156 million.

The Pittsburgh Steelers, a small market team, account for 42 % of the Total sales of NFL Merchandise in 2005.

I don't hear Danny Snyder and Jerry Jones #####ing about that.

 

[Bri]

—Some TV news: The Giants were the most-watched NFL team on television last season, with the Philadelphia Eagles a distant second. The Chicago Bears and the New York Jets were third and fourth.

 

[BigJim®]

Just so I'm clear, I didn't mean to suggest this is a minor issue. I just don't see gloom and doom for small markets over the disagreements. I'm almost positive they'll come up with some genius plan to keep everybody rolling in money. That plan will undoubtedly involve large market teams sharing revenue streams the small market teams never got a piece of... new money. The NFLPA should be aware that teams may not use the full cap if it begins to be based on revenues they don't make... but it sounds like at least key revenues will now be truly shared so the money is there. And honestly, even if there is some revenue disparity that impacts the cap, for every cheapo like McCombs that sandbags to net more profits, there's 20 other NFL owners who will eagerly spend up to whatever the cap is.

 

[Bri]

This is where the NFL as an organization misses Wellington Mara. (RIP)

 

[fatness]

Scout.com Story

Today the NFL said volumes about the state of the CBA negotiations with its silence as the expected announcement of the 2006 salary cap didn't take place. As first reported here on Scout.com on Saturday, it appears that a labor deal is very close to falling into place.

Reports that the a labor deal between the NFL and its players association is essentially done, as first reported here on Scout.com on Saturday night, are beginning to filter through and be reported by other media sources.

One tangible sign that there has been significant progress towards a new CBA was the failure of the NFL to announce the 2006 salary cap today. As Scout.com reported over the weekend, the salary cap for the 2006 season was expected to be announced on Monday. However, according to one NFL team that Scout.com talked to on Monday, the cap announcement could be pushed back another 24-48 hours because of recent progress toward a new collective bargaining agreement. There are also rumors that the cap actually might be higher than first reported ($95 million).

In the Washington Post, Mark Maske says that “many front-office executives” seem certain that a new CBA is imminent. He wonders why there is private optimism when the last public word we had on the state of the negotiations, from Gene Upshaw, was all about doom and gloom.

Perhaps Tagliabue has sent back-channel signals to the clubs that the negotiations are going better than he and Upshaw have indicated publicly. The owners have scheduled a meeting for next Monday and Tuesday in Dallas, and executives from some teams believe that Tagliabue and Upshaw will reach an agreement by Wednesday and postpone the opening of free agency from Friday until March 10 to give Tagliabue time to get the owners to approve the labor deal and bring their contentious revenue-sharing debate to a close.

................article continues

 

[The Jerk]

IMO, the best solution for the owners is to probably to throw a flat percentage from team-specific revenues into a pot and then divide it up equally amongst all the teams.  So if 20% of each team's profits goes into the pot, you force some revenue sharing while still rewarding good owners.

I think a compromise like this 20% you suggest makes a lot of sense. Sharing all of the local revenue is almost a disincentive for individual teams to creatively seek ways to expand their overall income and allows for some teams to be carried by the others. Sharing none of the local revenue could hurt the long-term future of the NFL by forcing a haves/have-not situation like in MLB. Larger-income teams need to realize that healthy teams throughout the league are better for the long term and allow the largest total national fanbase, while smaller-income teams should accept that in many cases, the larger income teams face greater expenses.It all seems to make sense, which makes me worried that it probably won't happen due to the egos involved with making a compromise.

 

[Marvelous]

I know PFT has covered the revenue sharing issue a lot. From what I read, unshared revenue is about 20% of total revenues, but this pot is growing faster than the shared revenue.

Personally, I think if they defined what "Total Football Revenues" are, they are getting close. Some examples that are not clear:

- Daniel Snyder has opened a lot of Redskin stores in local malls to increase sales of jerseys and other Redskins gear. Does that count in Total Football Revenues? Do other teams contribute the expenses associated with running these stores or do they just want a slice of the revenue? Does Daniel Snyer then have a say about whether the Bengals will open stores in Cincinnati they sell naming rights to their stadium since he has a vested interest in getting it done?

- Daniel Snyder just purchases 3 radio stations. He is clearly aiming at creating a Redskins radio network, but will obviously need to broadcast other info too. Does all this go into Total Football Revenues? Or just the revenues associated with the Redskins? Of course, Snyder has done this without other owners contributing a penny, so why should he share any of this revenue? Also, if this venture loses money, if there is revenue sharing, will the other owners bear any of the losses?

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

Interesting article from Tuesday's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

Players, teams will digest new CBA first

Tuesday, February 28, 2006

By Ed Bouchette, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

With optimism growing that the NFL will reach labor peace this week, the start of free agency might be delayed a week or even two.

The free-agency signing period is scheduled to begin Friday, but with an extension of the collective bargaining agreement possibly being in place by today or tomorrow, more time would be needed for teams and players to digest the new economics that would affect contracts.

For example, the salary cap that was expected to come in for each team at up to $95 million could reach $100 million or more under a new CBA.

Management and the NFL Players Association have been in fierce negotiations to get an agreement done before Friday because of all the ramifications that would affect both sides if there isn't one, starting immediately. The CBA runs through the 2007 season.

Tied to the CBA extension is a separate agreement that must be reached among the owners on revenue sharing. One source told the Post-Gazette that the owners are going to agree on the new formula for sharing revenue among all 32 teams that now is not shared. The discussions had brought disagreement and threatened to blow the NFL into an economic civil war between the so-called big-market teams and the small markets. The Steelers are considered to be in the middle of the pack.

"I feel that we'll likely have a deal," Dallas owner Jerry Jones told the South Florida Sun-Sentinel yesterday.

Another sign that a deal is imminent was a memo that each NFL team received yesterday informing them that the amounts for one-year tender contract offers required for restricted free agents would not be computed until at least today. Those were supposed to be released by the league yesterday.

The Steelers have two restricted free agents, cornerback Ike Taylor and special teams captain Sean Morey. Taylor will receive a contract that would give the Steelers a first-round draft pick if he's signed by another team and the Steelers decline to match. Morey will receive a lower tender, protecting the team's right to match any contract he might receive.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Ed Bouchette can be reached at ebouchette@post-gazette.com or 412-263-3878.)

 

[Bri]

I know PFT has covered the revenue sharing issue a lot. From what I read, unshared revenue is about 20% of total revenues, but this pot is growing faster than the shared revenue.

Personally, I think if they defined what "Total Football Revenues" are, they are getting close. Some examples that are not clear:

- Daniel Snyder has opened a lot of Redskin stores in local malls to increase sales of jerseys and other Redskins gear. Does that count in Total Football Revenues? Do other teams contribute the expenses associated with running these stores or do they just want a slice of the revenue? Does Daniel Snyer then have a say about whether the Bengals will open stores in Cincinnati they sell naming rights to their stadium since he has a vested interest in getting it done?

- Daniel Snyder just purchases 3 radio stations. He is clearly aiming at creating a Redskins radio network, but will obviously need to broadcast other info too. Does all this go into Total Football Revenues? Or just the revenues associated with the Redskins? Of course, Snyder has done this without other owners contributing a penny, so why should he share any of this revenue? Also, if this venture loses money, if there is revenue sharing, will the other owners bear any of the losses?

Snyder wouldn't own a team without the approval of the NFL and it's other owners. I'm sure if you looked at McDonalds or Dunkin Donuts or some other franchise in America, you'd also see franchise fees you thought were excessively high. They are but if you don't want to pay them then open a restaurant named Bob's Burgers and see how well it does. The name=$. Similarly, Snyder could have hooked up with McMahon and tried to create his own league if he didn't like it. He wanted the name so he has to pay the NFL's version of a franchise fee.

 

[The Jerk]

Snyder wouldn't own a team without the approval of the NFL and it's other owners. I'm sure if you looked at McDonalds or Dunkin Donuts or some other franchise in America, you'd also see franchise fees you thought were excessively high. They are but if you don't want to pay them then open a restaurant named Bob's Burgers and see how well it does. The name=$. Similarly, Snyder could have hooked up with McMahon and tried to create his own league if he didn't like it. He wanted the name so he has to pay the NFL's version of a franchise fee.

Adding to what Bri said, pro sports teams have a unique relationship in that the teams both compete against each other on the field and collaborate with each other off the field in marketing, league publicity, etc. In most industries, the strongest companies gain greater leverage and economic power when weaker competitors exit the marketplace. Eventually, a mature industry may have only a handful of the initial competitors remaining in operation. In the NFL, if sufficient competitors exit the marketplace, it actually hurts the strongest teams as well.

 

[BlueOnion]

Super Bowl Memorabilia Sales are up 5 fold from last year, from 30 million to 156 million.

The Pittsburgh Steelers, a small market team, account for 42 % of the Total sales of NFL Merchandise in 2005.

I don't hear Danny Snyder and Jerry Jones #####ing about that.

While true, what you fail to point out is this is a national revenue, meaning all 32 teams share in the revenue but all 32 teams share in the marketing and money management of this revenue streams.[Hypothitical example which would apply more to smaller markets other than Pittsburgh]

What the Daniel Snyder's and Jerry Jones' of the World are saying is, if we replicated the same business model for all of Pittsburgh's other local revenue streams, similar success can be expected. However, the Rooney's are reluctant to give up some of their autonomy over the Pittsburgh franchise. I don't blame the Rooney's for wanting to maintain autonomy over something they own, but I think it is disengenious (sp??) to expect to maintain autonomy over a club while expecting others clubs to subsidize them.

 

[BlueOnion]

There's no way the 25 smaller market teams will vote in favor of changing the definition of "Gross Revenues" to include revenues they don't reap. But the thinking (I believe) has been that rich owners have such a good thing going that they will eventually share revenues with small market teams simply because they don't want to ruin the good thing they have going.

The problem is not so much small market vs large market as much as it is between teams that own their stadiums and teams that lease their stadium. For instance, Daniel Snyder leases his luxury boxes for all events at FedEx Field for the entire year, meaning you cannot purchase a luxury box at FedEx field just for the Redskin home games, you have to buy it for the entire year. On the flip side, the city of Pittsburgh actually owns Heinz Field and the Steelers just use the stadium for their home games. This is one example of the difference in revenue.The Steelers fail to market their stadium in the sameway as Snyder markets FedEx field, in large part because they don't own the stadium. This is a loss of revenue for the NFL (if local revenue is to be shared) and this revenue instead goes to the tax-paying citizens of Pittsburgh. This works out great for the Rooneys because this was less money out of their pocket to build the stadium. However, Snyder\Cooke did have to spend a lot of money out of their pocket to build their stadium and have atonomy over their stadium revenues.

So I think the Rooneys are getting by on easy street here. They got the tax-payers of Pittsburgh to build them a stadium but sacrificed some potential revenue streams. Now they want over owners like Kraft, Snyder and Jones to give them some of their local revenue streams for nothing.

"Jones & Snyder" type owners have a legitimate complaint here. They had zero input on the business decision to let the tax-payers of Pittsburgh own the stadium, but they are now being asked to subsidize the Steelers because the Steelers choose to sacrifice these revenue streams?

 

[thayman]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2347125

Sounds like some good news from the CBA.....at least some progress seems to be getting made

 

[Godsbrother]

I doubt very much that teh Rooney's are asking for revenues from non-football events at FedEx Field.

 

[DCThunder]

"Jones & Snyder" type owners have a legitimate complaint here. They had zero input on the business decision to let the tax-payers of Pittsburgh own the stadium, but they are now being asked to subsidize the Steelers because the Steelers choose to sacrifice these revenue streams?

Jack Kent Cooke built FedEx almost entirely with his own money. The only public money in FedEx was for roads and other infrastructure, and I think Cooke paid for some of that too. In fact he had to build some other stuff for PeeGee County to get them to agree to let him build in the first place.

When Snyder bought the team and stadium from the estate of Mr. Cooke, he leveraged himself to the hilt. At the time everybody thought it was a bad deal for him to borrow so much money for the team/stadium and then he put another $100-150 million into the stadium. Yes, he has squeezed every dime out of the place and out of Redskins fans, but it was that extra revenue that made his business model work.

 

[BlueOnion]

I doubt very much that teh Rooney's are asking for revenues from non-football events at FedEx Field.

That is the rub. Trying to seperate what is 'nfl related revenue' and 'what is not nfl related revenue'.Who gets the majority of the naming rights revenue in Pittsburgh for Heinz Field? I assume most of it goes to the city of Pittsburgh since they own the stadium. So is it fair to ask Daniel Snyder to share his field naming rights revenue and not ask the tax-payers of Pittsburgh to share their naming rights revenue?

 

[Marvelous]

I know PFT has covered the revenue sharing issue a lot.  From what I read, unshared revenue is about 20% of total revenues, but this pot is growing faster than the shared revenue.

Personally, I think if they defined what "Total Football Revenues" are, they are getting close.  Some examples that are not clear:

- Daniel Snyder has opened a lot of Redskin stores in local malls to increase sales of jerseys and other Redskins gear.  Does that count in Total Football Revenues?  Do other teams contribute the expenses associated with running these stores or do they just want a slice of the revenue?  Does Daniel Snyer then have a say about whether the Bengals will open stores in Cincinnati they sell naming rights to their stadium since he has a vested interest in getting it done?

- Daniel Snyder just purchases 3 radio stations.  He is clearly aiming at creating a Redskins radio network, but will obviously need to broadcast other info too.  Does all this go into Total Football Revenues?  Or just the revenues associated with the Redskins?  Of course, Snyder has done this without other owners contributing a penny, so why should he share any of this revenue?  Also, if this venture loses money, if there is revenue sharing, will the other owners bear any of the losses?

Snyder wouldn't own a team without the approval of the NFL and it's other owners. I'm sure if you looked at McDonalds or Dunkin Donuts or some other franchise in America, you'd also see franchise fees you thought were excessively high. They are but if you don't want to pay them then open a restaurant named Bob's Burgers and see how well it does. The name=$. Similarly, Snyder could have hooked up with McMahon and tried to create his own league if he didn't like it. He wanted the name so he has to pay the NFL's version of a franchise fee.

I don't understand this response fully. Daniel Snyder is already an NFL owner. He is in good graces and the other owner like his marketing abilities.The issue now is whether or not to change the revenue sharing, which is a change in the rules. Snyder has created a situation where the Redskins have the highest revenue of all teams. He accomplished this by coming up with ideas and investing his own money to make them the work. Some of them fail, such as charging admission to training camp. Other he catches a lot of flak for, such as installing obstructed view seats at Fedex. But he does try. And the ideas that work do make money. He clearly should not be required to share this revenue unless the other owners are also willing to share the losses on the deals that don't work out. I did not see a single owner step up and say they want to share the millions Snyder on the charging admission to training camp. (By the way, Snyder built stands at the training facilities, had parking attendents, other entertainment, etc. So it is more than just having people there to collect money.)

If you want these revenue streams to continue to grow, you have to encourage other teams to work on it and take some risks. If you require Snyder to share the revenue but none of the cost or risk, you actually discourage people from growing these revenues.

 

[thayman]

The core of the issue is you have 32 greedy smart business men. All trying to get as much of the NFL pie as possible. Luckily they have had this uncapped year hanging over their heads. It was put in to motivate them into getting CBA's done and extended. Realsiticly I don't think they will allow themselves to enter an uncapped year.

Whether it is the Large Market Owners, or the Small Market ones, one side will relent, because sharing or not sharing their revenue is a hell of alot better then not having a cap

 

[Godsbrother]

I don't care how they settle it, just get it done and let's get on with Free Agency.

 

[thayman]

I don't care how they settle it, just get it done and let's get on with Free Agency.

I agree......I've heard quotes on talk radio, from Kraft IIRC. "why kill the goose that laid the golden egg" Probably the best quote I've heard.....

 

[garyd]

Let us also not forget that the major reason the owners are in this "predicament" is because the Player's Association put them there. The NFLPA is demanding no less than a 60-40 split of total revenue as part of the new CBA. They are the ones driving the total revenue ship....not the so-called small-market owners. And as far as the PA is concerned, every nickel that Lil' Danny (or Jerry or Bob Kraft or whoever) makes from the marketing/promotion of their respective football enterprises is part of total revenue and they want their cut. From Pro Football Weekly:

"The NFL and multiple television networks agreed to a new broadcast deal worth $24 billion, but Upshaw said many high-revenue owners have infinitely increased profits without sharing the wealth with their own players.

“Those high-revenue owners,” said Upshaw, mentioning Redskins owner Daniel Snyder as an owner in a class of his own, just above Cowboys owner Jerry Jones. “Have basically taken advantage of the system. …

“As players, we will get our fair share. (Owners) just have to cut back somewhere else,” he added, taking a direct jab at Jones and others with large marketing and support staffs with high salaries.

Danny & Jerry et al. don't just have to convince the other owners why they don't need to share all of their "extra" revenue....they need to convince the PA too.

 

[3nOut]

I don't care how they settle it, just get it done and let's get on with Free Agency.

I agree......I've heard quotes on talk radio, from Kraft IIRC. "why kill the goose that laid the golden egg" Probably the best quote I've heard.....

I thought I heard on NFL network yesterday that if they come to an agreement, Free Agency will be postponed a little in order to get their "ducks in a row". If they don't come to an agreement, then its business as usual and Free agency starts as usual, except that there will be a lot more cuts than typical.

 

[gump]

Super Bowl Memorabilia Sales are up 5 fold from last year, from 30 million to 156 million.

The Pittsburgh Steelers, a small market team, account for 42 % of the Total sales of NFL Merchandise in 2005.

Not sure what "Memorabilia Sales" is made up of, but SB Apparel sales (including the Locker Room tees and caps) were up roughly 15-20% from the Patriots win last year. And where is the 42% from? In Apparel, the Steelers would account for around 10% of the total NFL sales...taking out the Super Bowl...which is #1 or #2 with Dallas. The NFL Playoffs usually bring in around 15% of what the Regular Season brought in...Even if Pitt brought in 100% of that 15%, that still wouldn't get them all the way to 42%.

Not questioning your numbers, just wondering what they consist of. In the Apparel side of the NFL, they're off.

 

[BlueOnion]

Let us also not forget that the major reason the owners are in this "predicament" is because the Player's Association put them there. The NFLPA is demanding no less than a 60-40 split of total revenue as part of the new CBA. They are the ones driving the total revenue ship....not the so-called small-market owners. And as far as the PA is concerned, every nickel that Lil' Danny (or Jerry or Bob Kraft or whoever) makes from the marketing/promotion of their respective football enterprises is part of total revenue and they want their cut. From Pro Football Weekly:

"The NFL and multiple television networks agreed to a new broadcast deal worth $24 billion, but Upshaw said many high-revenue owners have infinitely increased profits without sharing the wealth with their own players.

“Those high-revenue owners,” said Upshaw, mentioning Redskins owner Daniel Snyder as an owner in a class of his own, just above Cowboys owner Jerry Jones. “Have basically taken advantage of the system. …

“As players, we will get our fair share. (Owners) just have to cut back somewhere else,” he added, taking a direct jab at Jones and others with large marketing and support staffs with high salaries.

Danny & Jerry et al. don't just have to convince the other owners why they don't need to share all of their "extra" revenue....they need to convince the PA too.

I think Danny and Jerry are not opposed to sharing additional revenue with the players. And personally, I think the players deserve a cut of this as well.

 

[BlueOnion]

Nothing new today? I guess we are awaiting the results of the super conference call between Tags and the 32 owners.

 

[Tackling Dummies]

Nothing new today? I guess we are awaiting the results of the super conference call between Tags and the 32 owners.

TSN radio is reporting that a deal could be announced by the end of the day.

 

[Marvelous]

Let us also not forget that the major reason the owners are in this "predicament" is because the Player's Association put them there. The NFLPA is demanding no less than a 60-40 split of total revenue as part of the new CBA.  They are the ones driving the total revenue ship....not the so-called small-market owners.  And as far as the PA is concerned, every nickel that Lil' Danny (or Jerry or Bob Kraft or whoever) makes from the marketing/promotion of their respective football enterprises is part of total revenue and they want their cut.  From Pro Football Weekly:

"The NFL and multiple television networks agreed to a new broadcast deal worth $24 billion, but Upshaw said many high-revenue owners have infinitely increased profits without sharing the wealth with their own players.

“Those high-revenue owners,” said Upshaw, mentioning Redskins owner Daniel Snyder as an owner in a class of his own, just above Cowboys owner Jerry Jones. “Have basically taken advantage of the system. …

“As players, we will get our fair share. (Owners) just have to cut back somewhere else,” he added, taking a direct jab at Jones and others with large marketing and support staffs with high salaries.

Danny & Jerry et al. don't just have to convince the other owners why they don't need to share all of their "extra" revenue....they need to convince the PA too.

I think Danny and Jerry are not opposed to sharing additional revenue with the players. And personally, I think the players deserve a cut of this as well.

Snyder certainly has no problem giving the players a larger share, thereby having a higher salary cap. It's sharing the revenues without any of the costs or risks he would oppose.But without additional revenue sharing, the lower revenue teams will face a higher salary cap (and minimum too) without a revenue stream to support it. So their profitability will get squeezed. That is the key issue.

 

[Marvelous]

FYI, buried in the Washington Post this morning:

Cap Situation, Etc.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Next season's salary cap likely will be about $108 million per team if the owners and the players' union can agree to an extension of their collective bargaining agreement. It probably will be set at $95 million to $96 million per club if there's no labor extension. Last season's salary cap was $85.5 million per team. . . .

LinkNote that a $95 M cap meant the Redskins had to do a lot to get under the cap and probably could not sign many players at all. A $108 M cap let's them go after a #2 WR and maybe a DL. Botton line: Snyder would love the higher cap.

 

[Beaumont]

NFL | Labor talks break down

Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:32:37 -0800

ESPNews reports the talks regarding the Collective Bargaining Agreement have broken down between the NFL Players Association and team owners. The meeting scheduled for Wednesday, March 1, has been called off, according to NFL Players Association Executive Director Gene Upshaw. The set deadline is Wednesday, March 1, at 4:00 p.m. EST.

:X

 

[lod2005]

Attention Redskins: START CHOPPING!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[MLBrandow]

$108M HOLY ####!

 

[Mungo Burrows]

It would be wild if those teams (Washington, et. al.) had to cut guys like crazy to get under the old cap, then they agreed to an extension with all that extra cap money available. It would be the most insane feeding frenzy evah!

 

[fatness]

ESPN Link

The sides have agreed on a number of issues. The biggest one is changing the formula for the amount of money to go to the players from "designated gross revenues" -- primarily television and ticket sales -- to "total gross revenues," which include almost every bit a money a a team generates.

However, they differ on the percentage of revenues to be allocated to the players -- the union is asking for 60 percent and the league's current offer is 56.2 percent.

However, there are also disputes among groups of owners on that issue, too. Tagliabue has called a league meeting in New York for Thursday to try to resolve them.

There's more to the article than that quote, but that seems to be the important part.

 

[B-Deep]

ESPN Link

The sides have agreed on a number of issues. The biggest one is changing the formula for the amount of money to go to the players from "designated gross revenues" -- primarily television and ticket sales -- to "total gross revenues," which include almost every bit a money a a team generates.

However, they differ on the percentage of revenues to be allocated to the players -- the union is asking for 60 percent and the league's current offer is 56.2 percent.

However, there are also disputes among groups of owners on that issue, too. Tagliabue has called a league meeting in New York for Thursday to try to resolve them.

There's more to the article than that quote, but that seems to be the important part.

Sorry...there was PFT bashing in another thread and it has been laid to restI remove my flip comment

 

[DoctorDetroit]

ESPN Link

The sides have agreed on a number of issues. The biggest one is changing the formula for the amount of money to go to the players from "designated gross revenues" -- primarily television and ticket sales -- to "total gross revenues," which include almost every bit a money a a team generates.

However, they differ on the percentage of revenues to be allocated to the players -- the union is asking for 60 percent and the league's current offer is 56.2 percent.

However, there are also disputes among groups of owners on that issue, too. Tagliabue has called a league meeting in New York for Thursday to try to resolve them.

There's more to the article than that quote, but that seems to be the important part.

From everything we've been reading and hearing the 60/56.2 divide is the #1 issue and all others can be worked out quickly. Fortunately the NFL is not like baseball or hockey where there is a noted disrespect between owners and the union and this will get worked out. I think the players must stand by 60 percent and IMO they will likely get that once the owners sit down. Luckily the NFL still has a good majority of old school owners with common sense. No way they let this thing spiral out of control to the point there a lockout because it seems to me that a lot of the problem is not between players and owners anyway, but between the owners themselves. When the owner's meetings commence next Tuesday clearer heads will likely prevail. Then what happens is that the owners will accept the 60 percent but use it as leverage to propel their other issues with the CBA. In the end everyone ends up happy and we all go about our merry ways as owners, players, and fans.