Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Hou, NE, Phily, Chi, Den, Chi, Dal, Wash (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Quez
- Start date
BigTex
Don't mess with Texas
http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/9244108
Little Danny has his hands full according to the main article. Skinz in cap hell? Looks like it's finally going to catch up with them.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jason Wood
Zoo York
This "labor" strife hasn't felt real from the start IMHO. Sure there are issues that needed to be ironed out, particularly among the owners themselves. But the NFL is too well run and too profitable for all parties involved to screw things up. The owners broke the union's back years ago and the owners, unlike the other major sports, all still make $$$ hand over fist [admittedly some make more than others, but it's much different than in MLB and the NHL].
BlueOnion
Footballguy
I don't think it ever will. Worse case scenario is the NFL does away with the cap, but all teams would still get their cut of the pooled revenues for sharing, which came out to about 85 million last year.I just don't want football to become like MLB. Look at the Devil Rays
Boston
Footballguy
The only thing I'm going to tell Bob Kraft is to keep doing what you're doing. He's brought three Super Bowl titles, four AFC titles, six AFC East titles, a privately funded state of the art facility, a class organization, an organization that does care about the fans and a sense of pride to a once rudderless organization. Since there's currently a salary cap I see no need for him to do anything more than he's doing. This isn't baseball and he's more than fufilling his obligation to the NFL.
buster c
Footballguy
are you a socialist? salary caps fly in the face of free markets and are the favored choice of anti-capitalists everywhere. if these "greedy" owners are forced to share their wealth and subsidize the "lazy unimaginative" owners, there will be no incentive for them to maximize their revenue and the entire NFL pie will be smaller.revenue sharingTell the owners of your teams to stop being greedy and agree on the revenue sharing
ImTheScientist
Footballguy
I agree 100%
Boston
Footballguy
Totally agree. I'm not worried about any major disruptions. Everyone involved knows what is going on/what's at stake. The sport is healthy as can be and will continue to be. One other thing is there's not a big history of animosity between the union and the league like there is/was in baseball and hockey with hard asses like Fehr and Goodenow. Those pissing matches get nasty and personal. Overall NFL ownership and the union are on the same page as much as ownership and a union can be. My gut feeling is Upshaw will flex a little muscle so he doesn't get accused of being in the owner's backpocket but a healthy deal for both parties will be worked out.
Spartans Rule
Footballguy
are you a socialist? salary caps fly in the face of free markets and are the favored choice of anti-capitalists everywhere. if these "greedy" owners are forced to share their wealth and subsidize the "lazy unimaginative" owners, there will be no incentive for them to maximize their revenue and the entire NFL pie will be smaller.revenue sharingTell the owners of your teams to stop being greedy and agree on the revenue sharing
You have no idea what the hell you're talking about."If" this happens? It has happened, and the result has been the exact opposite of what you claim "will" happen. The NFL has flourished in the salary cap era. Giving all 32 teams an equal chance to compete has been a huge boost for the league's popularity.The teams are not competing against each other for revenue. They're working together as franchises of the NFL to compete against other forms of entertainment. A salary cap produces teams that are more evenly matched, which means more competitive games and a better overall product.
A salary cap also keeps the cost of labor down for the teams. In the MLB, teams such as the Yankees and Red Sox make so much money that they can afford to drastically overpay the best players and still be well in the black, which drives up the price of labor for every team and hurts their bottom lines.
buster c
Footballguy
you know what? I think I know "what the hell" I'm talking about. I realize revenue sharing exists already, it's a matter of whether these guys are going to be forced to share ALL of their revenue. I say that the national TV contract money is subsidy enough. giving perennial losers like the Cards & Lions etc. a part of the Redskin locally derived revenue, will only give the Bidwells/Fords more money to mismanage. the NFL will flourish whether there is a salary cap or not. you must not be too swift with economics or you'd realize that if an owner of a team has no incentive to maximize revenues, league-wide revenues will fall. sounds like a great way to run a businessare you a socialist? salary caps fly in the face of free markets and are the favored choice of anti-capitalists everywhere. if these "greedy" owners are forced to share their wealth and subsidize the "lazy unimaginative" owners, there will be no incentive for them to maximize their revenue and the entire NFL pie will be smaller.revenue sharingTell the owners of your teams to stop being greedy and agree on the revenue sharing
The teams are not competing against each other for revenue. They're working together as franchises of the NFL to compete against other forms of entertainment. A salary cap produces teams that are more evenly matched, which means more competitive games and a better overall product.
A salary cap also keeps the cost of labor down for the teams. In the MLB, teams such as the Yankees and Red Sox make so much money that they can afford to drastically overpay the best players and still be well in the black, which drives up the price of labor for every team and hurts their bottom lines.
you bring up the Yankees and Red Sox - how many World Series have they won this millenium? as many as the Marlins, that free spending outfit. MN and Oak make the playoffs regularly. take that weak shick out of here.
GRIDIRON ASSASSIN
Footballguy
Interesting... usually the McCaskeys side with whatever other long time owners (NY Giants and Pittsburgh) agree to.
cstu
Footballguy
Ok, so the Red Sox went out and bought a championship like the Yankees, proves nothing. The Marlins can't afford to keep their players and have to be dismantled after every WS win. No wonder baseball is a joke now.you know what? I think I know "what the hell" I'm talking about. I realize revenue sharing exists already, it's a matter of whether these guys are going to be forced to share ALL of their revenue. I say that the national TV contract money is subsidy enough. giving perennial losers like the Cards & Lions etc. a part of the Redskin locally derived revenue, will only give the Bidwells/Fords more money to mismanage. the NFL will flourish whether there is a salary cap or not. you must not be too swift with economics or you'd realize that if an owner of a team has no incentive to maximize revenues, league-wide revenues will fall. sounds like a great way to run a businessare you a socialist? salary caps fly in the face of free markets and are the favored choice of anti-capitalists everywhere. if these "greedy" owners are forced to share their wealth and subsidize the "lazy unimaginative" owners, there will be no incentive for them to maximize their revenue and the entire NFL pie will be smaller.revenue sharingTell the owners of your teams to stop being greedy and agree on the revenue sharing
The teams are not competing against each other for revenue. They're working together as franchises of the NFL to compete against other forms of entertainment. A salary cap produces teams that are more evenly matched, which means more competitive games and a better overall product.
A salary cap also keeps the cost of labor down for the teams. In the MLB, teams such as the Yankees and Red Sox make so much money that they can afford to drastically overpay the best players and still be well in the black, which drives up the price of labor for every team and hurts their bottom lines.
you bring up the Yankees and Red Sox - how many World Series have they won this millenium? as many as the Marlins, that free spending outfit. MN and Oak make the playoffs regularly. take that weak shick out of here.
jeff_eaglz
Moderator
How exactly did you come up with some of those teams on that list?
Dallas and Washington, sure, they're all about the $$, but the rest.....?
Sure we see Eagles and Pats all over TV ads, but exactly what are the owners to do with this?
Really don't get Houston or Chicago.
Denver I'm on the fence.
But seriously - why these teams?
Dallas and Washington, sure, they're all about the $$, but the rest.....?
Sure we see Eagles and Pats all over TV ads, but exactly what are the owners to do with this?
Really don't get Houston or Chicago.
Denver I'm on the fence.
But seriously - why these teams?
ImTheScientist
Footballguy
They were talking about this on espn radio today...........Houston is only behind Washington and one other team on that list.......because of revenue generated from luxury seats, and local contracts.
redsoxfan
Footballguy
You left out one team: the GIANTS are also opposed to revenue sharing. Since it takes 24 votes to pass the new revenue sharing plan, the owners who are in the minority need to keep 9 teams voting against it (which they have right now).
Also, I don't think this is about greedy owners trying to keep their money. In a few cases it may be, but in most of these cases it's about the smartest owners who have maximized their local revenues wanting to keep those revenues instead of sharing them with the other owners who in many instances haven't even tried to improve their local revenues.
As a simple example, why should Bob Kraft, who built a new stadium with his own money share the revenues from that stadium with the owner of a team that gets the local taxpayers to foot the bill for their stadium? His entire business model for building the stadium was built around getting those "local revenues" to fund the stadium - and now the other owners want a piece of that money? Why?
Here's another example - the Patriots have an entire staff of people that do local marketing of the team to increase revenues. The Cardinals have one person that does this. Guess which team generates more money? Given that the Pat's have invested considerably more money in this staff, why should they then have to take the money it generates and share it with the Cardinals who don't invest the same money into their team?
Anyway, I may be in the minority here, but I am firmly on the side of these minority owners.
There was a long debate on this in one of the Patriot's fan message boards (since our owner is one of the holdouts) and it explains their position very well. Note: this debate is something like 90+ posts, but it does give a good description of the issues. If you want to take a look here's the link
Also, I don't think this is about greedy owners trying to keep their money. In a few cases it may be, but in most of these cases it's about the smartest owners who have maximized their local revenues wanting to keep those revenues instead of sharing them with the other owners who in many instances haven't even tried to improve their local revenues.
As a simple example, why should Bob Kraft, who built a new stadium with his own money share the revenues from that stadium with the owner of a team that gets the local taxpayers to foot the bill for their stadium? His entire business model for building the stadium was built around getting those "local revenues" to fund the stadium - and now the other owners want a piece of that money? Why?
Here's another example - the Patriots have an entire staff of people that do local marketing of the team to increase revenues. The Cardinals have one person that does this. Guess which team generates more money? Given that the Pat's have invested considerably more money in this staff, why should they then have to take the money it generates and share it with the Cardinals who don't invest the same money into their team?
Anyway, I may be in the minority here, but I am firmly on the side of these minority owners.
There was a long debate on this in one of the Patriot's fan message boards (since our owner is one of the holdouts) and it explains their position very well. Note: this debate is something like 90+ posts, but it does give a good description of the issues. If you want to take a look here's the link
They were on the other side the last time these discussions took place. The difference now is that they have a stadium that generates plenty of the non sharable revenue. Sure, a lot of the funding is coming from taxes, and a lot of that came from the fans who paid PSL money. Some of it is came from the McCaskeys themselves as well. Overall where the money came from isn't all that important...Now the small market teams want to change the rules, after all of these other teams sunk billions into their stadiums? As if we should have to pay taxes so that some guy in KC or whatever can profit. As if the fans should have had to shell out PSL money for that either. That's not what these "investors" signed up for, and that's BS.
Last edited by a moderator:
BoltBacker
Footballguy
Do you really care if new stadiums continue to get built.If I was given the choice between viewing a game in a new stadium or lower ticket prices/taxes I'd choose watching games in older stadiums.
BlueOnion
Footballguy
You make some good points, but I think you are suffering from the same disease that is killing MLB. The economic war is not between the Redskins and Cardinals and it is not between the Yankees and Pirates. The economic war is between the NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB and other sporting events, such as the Daytona 500. The ratings just came out for the Daytona 500 (Sunday Afternoon) and it beat 3 out of the 4 World Series games which were played in prime time.MLB is getting it's butt kicked using your business model.you know what? I think I know "what the hell" I'm talking about. I realize revenue sharing exists already, it's a matter of whether these guys are going to be forced to share ALL of their revenue. I say that the national TV contract money is subsidy enough. giving perennial losers like the Cards & Lions etc. a part of the Redskin locally derived revenue, will only give the Bidwells/Fords more money to mismanage.
the NFL will flourish whether there is a salary cap or not. you must not be too swift with economics or you'd realize that if an owner of a team has no incentive to maximize revenues, league-wide revenues will fall. sounds like a great way to run a business
you bring up the Yankees and Red Sox - how many World Series have they won this millenium? as many as the Marlins, that free spending outfit. MN and Oak make the playoffs regularly. take that weak shick out of here.
Bevo
Footballguy
O.K. I'll do that. Right after those lazy ### owners that aren't out working their asses off to maximize the money that their teams COULD be making. Tell the to stop relying on the NFL corporate ### to do their jobs for them. O.K.?Tell the owners of your teams to stop being greedy and agree on the revenue sharing
BlueOnion
Footballguy
Here is a simple example that represents the core problem.
Green Bay\Cinncinati do not sell the naming rights to their field (potential local revenue stream). Washington does sell their naming rights and is then asked to share that extra revenue with Green Bay\Cinncinati. Entirely unfair.
Slightly less unfair is the same scenario exists between Pittsburgh and Washington. Pittsburgh did sell the naming rights to their stadium to a local company (Heinz). Washington is still asked to make up the revenue difference between the Heinz Field sponsorship and the FedEx sponsorship, but the Washington management has no input on the business decisions of the department (Pittsburgh) they have to subsidize.
Green Bay\Cinncinati do not sell the naming rights to their field (potential local revenue stream). Washington does sell their naming rights and is then asked to share that extra revenue with Green Bay\Cinncinati. Entirely unfair.
Slightly less unfair is the same scenario exists between Pittsburgh and Washington. Pittsburgh did sell the naming rights to their stadium to a local company (Heinz). Washington is still asked to make up the revenue difference between the Heinz Field sponsorship and the FedEx sponsorship, but the Washington management has no input on the business decisions of the department (Pittsburgh) they have to subsidize.
Quez
Footballguy
You all bring up some very good points, and I am starting to understand both sides of the argument.
I believe Kraft and one other owner are seperate from the rest of the league in they want a compromise. They are not as extreem as Snyder and Jones, but they want something done.
I guess I would be in support of some changes, but I don't want the cap to go away.
I live in Tampa, and the salary cap is the only reason we have a good team. You take that away and you have MNF and Sunday night football dominated by the big market teams. Who is going to want to watch a game between a team that could spend 200 mil on salaries, and a team that could only spend 80 mil? That's not fair.
I believe Kraft and one other owner are seperate from the rest of the league in they want a compromise. They are not as extreem as Snyder and Jones, but they want something done.
I guess I would be in support of some changes, but I don't want the cap to go away.
I live in Tampa, and the salary cap is the only reason we have a good team. You take that away and you have MNF and Sunday night football dominated by the big market teams. Who is going to want to watch a game between a team that could spend 200 mil on salaries, and a team that could only spend 80 mil? That's not fair.
jeff_eaglz
Moderator
If that is true, then the memory of Wellington Mara did not last long at all....
BlueOnion
Footballguy
You have to consider the Giants\Jets have agreed on a plan to build a stadium without any tax payers help. A part of that plan was based on the assumption that much of their local revenue could be used to pay off the debt of building the stadium.It would be like you taking out a loan on a home based on your salary, only to find out after signing the mortgage you have to give half your salary to your brother. You would not be opposed to giving your brother some financial help, but the timing of it sucks.
BlueOnion
Footballguy
Are you really understanding Snyder and Jones' position? Think of it this way, lets assume Green Bay and Washington are going to share their revenue 50\50. Washington sells the naming rights of their field to FedEx for 10 million dollars. Green Bay opts not to 'sell out' and keep their field name, Lambeau Field. Washington has to share revenue and consequently gives Green Bay 5 million dollars. What Snyder and Jones are saying, "If we have to share our revenue with other teams that are not generating as much revenue, we should at least have a say in how these teams are run.Edited - Snyder and Jones are not opposed to revenue sharing. They just believe if the teams are going to share revenue, teams should also have equal input.
Last edited by a moderator:
BoulderBob
Footballguy
The small-market teams with sub-par stadiums will give in. They do not deserve a bigger piece of the pie.
Aaronstory
Footballguy
Do you have any idea how the NFL became what it is today? What are you, 12?are you a socialist? salary caps fly in the face of free markets and are the favored choice of anti-capitalists everywhere. if these "greedy" owners are forced to share their wealth and subsidize the "lazy unimaginative" owners, there will be no incentive for them to maximize their revenue and the entire NFL pie will be smaller.revenue sharingTell the owners of your teams to stop being greedy and agree on the revenue sharing
Aaronstory
Footballguy
jeff_eaglz
Moderator
Exactly. NFL history, circa 1960.Do you have any idea how the NFL became what it is today? What are you, 12?are you a socialist? salary caps fly in the face of free markets and are the favored choice of anti-capitalists everywhere. if these "greedy" owners are forced to share their wealth and subsidize the "lazy unimaginative" owners, there will be no incentive for them to maximize their revenue and the entire NFL pie will be smaller.revenue sharingTell the owners of your teams to stop being greedy and agree on the revenue sharing
Wellington Mara
Last edited by a moderator:
Texasmouth
Footballguy
I'll call Uncle Jerry tonight and see what I can work out.
Good luck getting Jerry Jones to do anything practical. he is also the guy who went completely against the NFL sponsors on a couple of occasions to do his own thing.
Good luck getting Jerry Jones to do anything practical. he is also the guy who went completely against the NFL sponsors on a couple of occasions to do his own thing.
buster c
Footballguy
please make your point. and don't patronize someone who is smarterDo you have any idea how the NFL became what it is today? What are you, 12?are you a socialist? salary caps fly in the face of free markets and are the favored choice of anti-capitalists everywhere. if these "greedy" owners are forced to share their wealth and subsidize the "lazy unimaginative" owners, there will be no incentive for them to maximize their revenue and the entire NFL pie will be smaller.revenue sharingTell the owners of your teams to stop being greedy and agree on the revenue sharing
and better looking than you are.
Rovers
Footballguy
Tell Green Bay to get their stadium a corporate sponsor, and throw that money into the "shared pool". While you are at it, tell the so called poor teams to invest in stadium improvements with their own money, not tax payer money that they refuse to share with the rest of the league. Why should the Jets and Giants build a 1 billion dollar stadium and fork all the profits over to the whiners?
Wreckincrew
Footballguy
The one thing everyone is overlooking is where all this extra local revenue comes from. Every new revenue stream a team finds in its local market is ultimately paid for by you and I. If the Cowboys (who are getting a HUGE amount of tax money from Arlington for their new palace) make 25 million in local revenue and the Vikings make 5 million the Cowboys are going to have a much stronger scouting dept, better paid & more coaches, better training facilities & the ability to give out huge bonuses to FA's. In order to stay competitive the Vikings are forced to find money any way they can, even if it ultimately hurts their fans. For example, 2 years ago the Vikings tried to maximize their training camp revenue by putting it out for bids. The long time home of training camp, Mankato, MN, won the bid over three other cities (Duluth, St. Cloud, & Sioux Falls, SD I believe). Mankato's costs associated with holding training camp tripled and they were forced to charge admission this year to cover them. Fans were so upset about having to pay that the Vikings agreed to waive a portion of the "Mankato Training Camp, Inc." (not sure of the exact name but you get the idea) payment due them in exchange for free admission. The end result of this is bankruptcy for the MTCI and no more training camp for Mankato after this year. The Vikings lack of local revenue, coupled with their need to keep up with the Jones' (pun intended) is forcing them to abandon their training camp home of almost 40 years. If the Vikings ever do build a new stadium and pull even with the rest of the league the other teams in larger markets will find another way to squeeze a few more dollars out of their fans and the "financial arms race” will continue on and on. In the end who ends up paying for it? That’s right, you and I.
Also, if you really feel the NFL needs to be a free market then let anyone that wants to start a team go ahead and start one. After all, 32 widget makers don't get to decide if a 33rd one can build a factory and start making widgets.
Also, if you really feel the NFL needs to be a free market then let anyone that wants to start a team go ahead and start one. After all, 32 widget makers don't get to decide if a 33rd one can build a factory and start making widgets.
maddawg2020
Footballguy
No he's not a socialist but he probably is a democrat!This is ridiculous. I haven't posted on this board in quite some time but I had to chime in on this. I am a real estate investor. I own 10 rental units and have a full-time income from this because of my hard work AND my business savvyness. I'm not a big time guy but I do well... I have friends that are idiots and have more property but have shelled out tens-of-thousands more than me and still work regular day jobs because they did it wrong... should I be forced to share some of my well-earned money with them just because they're not as smart as me.are you a socialist? salary caps fly in the face of free markets and are the favored choice of anti-capitalists everywhere. if these "greedy" owners are forced to share their wealth and subsidize the "lazy unimaginative" owners, there will be no incentive for them to maximize their revenue and the entire NFL pie will be smaller.revenue sharingTell the owners of your teams to stop being greedy and agree on the revenue sharing
Flip side of this, should Donald Trump be forced to share money with me? He's got more power and resources than I do, should we be forced to pool our cash flow. I've about $1million dollars in property. He's got about $65 Billion dollars in property. I've done nothing to earn it but I should get a piece of his $65 Billion pie.... sounds like what the democrats are trying to do to us now. Why don't ya look at Russia and Sweeden and see how well they're doing financially.
Last edited by a moderator:
BlueOnion
Footballguy
All very true. The other side of the coin is (in your example), if Vikings' ownership is not going to squeeze additional revenue out of the Minnesota fans (market) for the Vikings, than sharing the local revenue means the Redskins' ownership will be squeezing additional revenue out of the Washington fans (market) for the Viking fans. The big markets are saying this is unfair to the local residents of Washington, which I can understand.
BlueOnion
Footballguy
I looked at the Dutch and they are probably one of the strongest European countries.But your point is valid and I do agree with you. The only thing wrong with your business model is you make it sound like your business savy is mutually exclusive of your friends, which is not the case in the NFL.
Do you think Daniel Snyder would be better off forming his own professional league of 1 team and then trying to compete with the NFL, which he no longer belongs too?
