CBA DONE? (1 Viewer)

[The Jerk]

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.

Here you go, Gump.From this article at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Sunday, February 26):

A sporting goods research firm calculated sales of Steelers merchandise so far this year have reached $154 million, more than five times the size of the $30 million total for the same period last year. The team alone has accounted for more than 40 percent of total NFL merchandise sales this year, according to SportsScanInfo, a sporting goods research firm in West Palm Beach, Fla.

 

[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.

Here you go, Gump.From this article at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Sunday, February 26):

A sporting goods research firm calculated sales of Steelers merchandise so far this year have reached $154 million, more than five times the size of the $30 million total for the same period last year. The team alone has accounted for more than 40 percent of total NFL merchandise sales this year, according to SportsScanInfo, a sporting goods research firm in West Palm Beach, Fla.

Thanks, Jerk. That is a he!! of a lot of Terrible Towels!!

 

[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.

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.

franchise fees are commonplace in america. If the NFL requires you to give to them 10% of your profits, TS for him he's gotta do it. If he makes a ton say 100 mil and has to give 10%, then he's still made 90mil. If some small market team makes 10 mil and has to give 1 mil, they are only left with 9 mil in their pocket. It hardly makes me feel bad for Snyder.Also

As I mentioned, Wellington Mara will be sorely missed this year. Having a team in the biggest market and being in the NFL for "forever" he understood everything. The one thing, IMO, many owners of today don't understand is market saturation. Mara could warn of it's perils to Snyder and he'd listen to the wise old man. I'm not sure if someone has stepped up as the wise old man in these owner's meetings.

 

[BlueOnion]

As I mentioned, Wellington Mara will be sorely missed this year. Having a team in the biggest market and being in the NFL for "forever" he understood everything. The one thing, IMO, many owners of today don't understand is market saturation. Mara could warn of it's perils to Snyder and he'd listen to the wise old man. I'm not sure if someone has stepped up as the wise old man in these owner's meetings.

I am not buying this, in lieu of the actual point of contention with the CBA. Wellington Mara was very involved with building his own stadium for the New York Giants with his own money. And much of the financing for this new stadium was predicated on the anticipated local revenue streams the new stadium would bring. I doubt Wellington Mara would have been excited to sign a loan commitment, after which his expected revenue streams would be significantly slashed.