Hou, NE, Phily, Chi, Den, Chi, Dal, Wash (1 Viewer)

[Kosar]

Tell the owners of your teams to stop being greedy and agree on the revenue sharing

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 sharing

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.

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.

This comparison is FLAWED.Yes, the NFL teams compete on the field, but on some levels, all of the teams are WORKING TOGETHER as one business.

I don't believe you would ever work with your competitors.

This has been said, but how the #### else do you think the NFL got so popular and strong? Give me a damn break!!!

 

[thayman]

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.

My problem is that you are expecting the "Big" market teams----> see successfull teams to support the complete ineptitude of the other owners. I'm sorry that Dan Snyder is a good business guy that likes to put money back into the team. At the same time I'm sorry that other ownerships don't seem to run their finacials as well as he does.The problem that these big money owners have is that they are paying for other teams that don't seem to want to work hard at all. Will you give me a cut of your paycheck so I can sit at home??

 

[roadkill1292]

The big market owners like Snyder and Jones certainly have a point here and the Player's Association is doing a good job exploiting the differences in the owners' ranks.

But how will they feel in the long term if revenue growth slows, or revenues even decline, as the fans perceive a drop off in competitiveness? When the small maket teams are seriously outgunned financially, won't TV viewership decline? Won't the revenues in the smaller markets decline as the fan base gives up?

A big part of the NFL's success in recent years has been its free-for-all on the field, where every team feels it's only two years away from winning it all. The smaller revenue teams may be managed more poorly, but keeping them in it seems to result in a great deal more overall revenue (for all parties) in the long run.

 

[BlueOnion]

The big market owners like Snyder and Jones certainly have a point here and the Player's Association is doing a good job exploiting the differences in the owners' ranks.

But how will they feel in the long term if revenue growth slows, or revenues even decline, as the fans perceive a drop off in competitiveness? When the small maket teams are seriously outgunned financially, won't TV viewership decline? Won't the revenues in the smaller markets decline as the fan base gives up?

A big part of the NFL's success in recent years has been its free-for-all on the field, where every team feels it's only two years away from winning it all. The smaller revenue teams may be managed more poorly, but keeping them in it seems to result in a great deal more overall revenue (for all parties) in the long run.

I agree with you, the counter-point is.Small market owners simply need to change their quality of living and and downsize their lifestyle to one in which they can get by on 50,000 or 35,000 a year. This would allow them to put more money into their franchises and help maintain a competive and level playing field in the NFL.

For some reason, this is beneath these small market owners.

 

[Boston]

This whole thing seems pretty simple.

*A salary cap and league-wide revenue (i.e. revenue generated by the league, like TV, not the individual team) ensures competitiveness.

*Individual owners/organizations should be rewarded for hard work, insight and intelligence that reaps their individual franchises revenue. Teams that do not get the job done in this area should not be rewarded or subsidized.

At the end of the day this is America and you should not be penalized for hard work that results in postive financial results.

 

[wdh76]

My problem is that you are expecting the "Big" market teams----> see successfull teams to support the complete ineptitude of the other owners. I'm sorry that Dan Snyder is a good business guy that likes to put money back into the team. At the same time I'm sorry that other ownerships don't seem to run their finacials as well as he does.

The problem that these big money owners have is that they are paying for other teams that don't seem to want to work hard at all. Will you give me a cut of your paycheck so I can sit at home??

Ok I will make a deal with you. You and I will raise enough money to start a team and see who can do a better job. Here is the Catch-I get to put my team in either DC, Dallas, or NY.

Your team is in Jvill, Pitt, or GB.

Ready set go!

 

[BlueOnion]

This whole thing seems pretty simple.

*A salary cap and league-wide revenue (i.e. revenue generated by the league, like TV, not the individual team) ensures competitiveness.

*Individual owners/organizations should be rewarded for hard work, insight and intelligence that reaps their individual franchises revenue. Teams that do not get the job done in this area should not be rewarded or subsidized.

At the end of the day this is America and you should not be penalized for hard work that results in postive financial results.

I agree with this and it makes logical sense. But this sort of business model is not working for other leagues employing it. Look at MLB; the Daytona 500 just whooped 3 out 4 World Series games in the ratings war. Couple that with the World Series games being played in primetime and the Daytona 500 being run Sunday afternoon, MLB is in a world of hurt.

 

[BlueOnion]

Ok I will make a deal with you. You and I will raise enough money to start a team and see who can do a better job. Here is the Catch-

I get to put my team in either DC, Dallas, or NY.

Your team is in Jvill, Pitt, or GB.

Ready set go!

Your missing the point of contention. Large market owners want to share responsibility and share revenue. Small markets just want to share revenue.

 

[wdh76]

This whole thing seems pretty simple.

*A salary cap and league-wide revenue (i.e. revenue generated by the league, like TV, not the individual team) ensures competitiveness.

*Individual owners/organizations should be rewarded for hard work, insight and intelligence that reaps their individual franchises revenue. Teams that do not get the job done in this area should not be rewarded or subsidized.

At the end of the day this is America and you should not be penalized for hard work that results in postive financial results.

For this to hold true you MUST keep the local revenue out of the salary cap figure. If not you are allowing teams to spend money they dont have and its not a real Salary cap.

 

[wdh76]

Ok I will make a deal with you.  You and I will raise enough money to start a team and see who can do a better job.  Here is the Catch-

I get to put my team in either DC, Dallas, or NY.

Your team is in Jvill, Pitt, or GB.

Ready set go!

Your missing the point of contention. Large market owners want to share responsibility and share revenue. Small markets just want to share revenue.

No, the small market owners want ANY revenue in the Salary Cap figure shared.

 

[Boston]

This whole thing seems pretty simple.

*A salary cap and league-wide revenue (i.e. revenue generated by the league, like TV, not the individual team) ensures competitiveness.

*Individual owners/organizations should be rewarded for hard work, insight and intelligence that reaps their individual franchises revenue.  Teams that do not get the job done in this area should not be rewarded or subsidized.

At the end of the day this is America and you should not be penalized for hard work that results in postive financial results.

I agree with this and it makes logical sense. But this sort of business model is not working for other leagues employing it. Look at MLB; the Daytona 500 just whooped 3 out 4 World Series games in the ratings war. Couple that with the World Series games being played in primetime and the Daytona 500 being run Sunday afternoon, MLB is in a world of hurt.

You can not compare MLB and the NFL. Not at all. They are a totally different business model since there is no salary cap. Due to that the payroll of a team like the Yankees or Red Sox is ridiculously superior to that of a team like KC or Milwaukee which creates an unfair advantage. With a salary cap that also has a minimum floor that just doesn't take place in the NFL which is why a team like Pittsburgh wins a Super Bowl but is a mess in the MLB. At the end of the day the NFL business had it's seeds planted years ago by Rozelle and is light years ahead of the other three sports. MLB has no cap, the NBA has a crazy cap with luxury tax provisions and the NHL is a mess that just instituted a cap so it's still a work in progress. The NFL has a hard cap and thus leads to a healthy league. Yet not all owners and organizations are run the same and the ones that are run well should not be penalized.

 

[Boston]

This whole thing seems pretty simple.

*A salary cap and league-wide revenue (i.e. revenue generated by the league, like TV, not the individual team) ensures competitiveness.

*Individual owners/organizations should be rewarded for hard work, insight and intelligence that reaps their individual franchises revenue.  Teams that do not get the job done in this area should not be rewarded or subsidized.

At the end of the day this is America and you should not be penalized for hard work that results in postive financial results.

For this to hold true you MUST keep the local revenue out of the salary cap figure. If not you are allowing teams to spend money they dont have and its not a real Salary cap.

I have no problem with that but I'm sure the players will which is where it gets very dicey.

 

[thayman]

My problem is that you are expecting the "Big" market teams----> see successfull teams to support the complete ineptitude of the other owners.  I'm sorry that Dan Snyder is a good business guy that likes to put money back into the team.  At the same time I'm sorry that other ownerships don't seem to run their finacials as well as he does.

The problem that these big money owners have is that they are paying for other teams that don't seem to want to work hard at all.  Will you give me a cut of your paycheck so I can sit at home??

Ok I will make a deal with you. You and I will raise enough money to start a team and see who can do a better job. Here is the Catch-I get to put my team in either DC, Dallas, or NY.

Your team is in Jvill, Pitt, or GB.

Ready set go!

That is fine....oh and the Redskins worth exceeds $1 Billion. What is the value of Jville?? My problem is the owners like Dan Snyder paid $750 million for his franchise. By contrast the AZ Cardinals are barely worth half of that. So Snyder should have to pay MORE money to keep the JVilles and GB competitive??My opinion is EVERY team has the potential to be a large market franchise. If it builds it's fan base correctly there is no reason why every team cannot be successfull

 

[wdh76]

My problem is that you are expecting the "Big" market teams----> see successfull teams to support the complete ineptitude of the other owners.  I'm sorry that Dan Snyder is a good business guy that likes to put money back into the team.  At the same time I'm sorry that other ownerships don't seem to run their finacials as well as he does.

The problem that these big money owners have is that they are paying for other teams that don't seem to want to work hard at all.  Will you give me a cut of your paycheck so I can sit at home??

Ok I will make a deal with you. You and I will raise enough money to start a team and see who can do a better job. Here is the Catch-I get to put my team in either DC, Dallas, or NY.

Your team is in Jvill, Pitt, or GB.

Ready set go!

That is fine....oh and the Redskins worth exceeds $1 Billion. What is the value of Jville?? My problem is the owners like Dan Snyder paid $750 million for his franchise. By contrast the AZ Cardinals are barely worth half of that. So Snyder should have to pay MORE money to keep the JVilles and GB competitive??My opinion is EVERY team has the potential to be a large market franchise. If it builds it's fan base correctly there is no reason why every team cannot be successfull

How do you suppose teams in small markets become large markets? These local revenues are just that LOCAL. How do cities like GB and Jville comand the same local income as NY or DC, please explain???If your logic is correct MLB should be just as competative for every team as the NFL. Is it???

 

[thayman]

My problem is that you are expecting the "Big" market teams----> see successfull teams to support the complete ineptitude of the other owners.  I'm sorry that Dan Snyder is a good business guy that likes to put money back into the team.  At the same time I'm sorry that other ownerships don't seem to run their finacials as well as he does.

The problem that these big money owners have is that they are paying for other teams that don't seem to want to work hard at all.  Will you give me a cut of your paycheck so I can sit at home??

Ok I will make a deal with you. You and I will raise enough money to start a team and see who can do a better job. Here is the Catch-I get to put my team in either DC, Dallas, or NY.

Your team is in Jvill, Pitt, or GB.

Ready set go!

That is fine....oh and the Redskins worth exceeds $1 Billion. What is the value of Jville?? My problem is the owners like Dan Snyder paid $750 million for his franchise. By contrast the AZ Cardinals are barely worth half of that. So Snyder should have to pay MORE money to keep the JVilles and GB competitive??My opinion is EVERY team has the potential to be a large market franchise. If it builds it's fan base correctly there is no reason why every team cannot be successfull

How do you suppose teams in small markets become large markets? These local revenues are just that LOCAL. How do cities like GB and Jville comand the same local income as NY or DC, please explain???If your logic is correct MLB should be just as competative for every team as the NFL. Is it???

Yes the MLB CAN be as competitive. Look at the Washington Nationals. they went from being the non-competitive Expos, to once they had a decent GM to being extremely competitive all year. If owners staff well they should have little trouble being competitive. Now I will agree that you have the one or two teams that try and "buy" a championship, but that really never works. A good farm system with good coaches and good GM = a competitve team......see the Atlanta Braves. Not a large market team, but in the hunt every year.

 

[BlueOnion]

Ok I will make a deal with you. You and I will raise enough money to start a team and see who can do a better job. Here is the Catch-

I get to put my team in either DC, Dallas, or NY.

Your team is in Jvill, Pitt, or GB.

Ready set go!

Your missing the point of contention. Large market owners want to share responsibility and share revenue. Small markets just want to share revenue.

No, the small market owners want ANY revenue in the Salary Cap figure shared.

And that is ridiculous. So Green Bay opts not to sell the naming rights for Lambeau Field. However, the Redskins do sell their rights to FedEx Field. However, Green Bay can turn around and expect the Redskins to give the Packers half the revenue for selling the naming right to FedEx field? I don't think you could propose anything more ridiculous than that.

Maybe what you meant to imply is local revenue (such as naming rights to fields) should not be a shared revenue. But if that is the case, can you really expect the players to accept this?

Or maybe you thought local revenue (such as naming rights to fields) should be shared between those who do sell the naming rights to fields and the players. But then you don't really have a cap because the large markets are aloud to spend their local revenue on player's salaries.

I am really at a lose at what you are proposing here.

 

[BlueOnion]

That is fine....oh and the Redskins worth exceeds $1 Billion. What is the value of Jville?? My problem is the owners like Dan Snyder paid $750 million for his franchise. By contrast the AZ Cardinals are barely worth half of that. So Snyder should have to pay MORE money to keep the JVilles and GB competitive??

My opinion is EVERY team has the potential to be a large market franchise. If it builds it's fan base correctly there is no reason why every team cannot be successfull

This is ridiculous on so many levels. 1) The reason a city like New York is a big market is because of Manhattan. Just look at the Manhattan skyline, all the skyscrapers and all the corporations that exist in these skyscrapers. This is a huge market of large companies that are chomping at the bit to spend whatever it takes to get a luxury box at Giant Stadium or Yankee Stadium. This large of a big corporate market will never exist in Green Bay, Pittsburgh or even Kansas City.

2) Total population of each market also makes a huge difference. Advertisements on local television and local radio stations can be charged significantly more money than those in Green Bay, Pittsburgh or Kansas City simply because the advertisements are going to reach more people. If you are going to market a product and could advertise in one market, you would want to advertise in New York because you will simply expose your product to more people. The flip side is, advertising in New York will cost you more money too. This is local revenue.

 

[BlueOnion]

Yes the MLB CAN be as competitive. Look at the Washington Nationals. they went from being the non-competitive Expos, to once they had a decent GM to being extremely competitive all year. If owners staff well they should have little trouble being competitive.

Now I will agree that you have the one or two teams that try and "buy" a championship, but that really never works. A good farm system with good coaches and good GM = a competitve team......see the Atlanta Braves. Not a large market team, but in the hunt every year.

What world do you live in? MLB is floundering professional league. Did you not see the television ratings for the World Series relative to the Daytona 500? The Daytona 500 was a Sunday afternoon event and beat 3 out of the 4 primetime World Series broadcasts.

Obviously the reason this is happening is because every market outside of New York, Boston, Los Angeles and St. Louis could not careless about MLB, and I don't blame those markets when you look at the product MLB is rolling out in those respective markets.



It cannot be said enough in regards to MLB; MLB just got by NASCAR and it is not because stock car racing is more entertaining than baseball. It has to do with the far inferior sports product MLB is trying to market to the majority of martkers (small markets) in this country.

 

[wdh76]

Ok I will make a deal with you.  You and I will raise enough money to start a team and see who can do a better job.  Here is the Catch-

I get to put my team in either DC, Dallas, or NY.

Your team is in Jvill, Pitt, or GB.

Ready set go!

Your missing the point of contention. Large market owners want to share responsibility and share revenue. Small markets just want to share revenue.

No, the small market owners want ANY revenue in the Salary Cap figure shared.

And that is ridiculous. So Green Bay opts not to sell the naming rights for Lambeau Field. However, the Redskins do sell their rights to FedEx Field. However, Green Bay can turn around and expect the Redskins to give the Packers half the revenue for selling the naming right to FedEx field? I don't think you could propose anything more ridiculous than that.

Maybe what you meant to imply is local revenue (such as naming rights to fields) should not be a shared revenue. But if that is the case, can you really expect the players to accept this?

Or maybe you thought local revenue (such as naming rights to fields) should be shared between those who do sell the naming rights to fields and the players. But then you don't really have a cap because the large markets are aloud to spend their local revenue on player's salaries.

I am really at a lose at what you are proposing here.

So what you want is a salary cap figure that includes non shared revenue? So now this figure could become higher than some teams total revenues? As you have stated above (in another post) some markets WILL ALWAYS have more local revenues than others. So using this source of income, without pulling it, will put the small markers at a disadvange right? So what happens is a teams salary spent on players still depends on its ability to create revenue. HELLO MLB!!!I would like to keep a real salary cap. I do not care if you pool these revenue sources or exclude them, but to use them and not pool them you create a FAKE cap.

 

[BlueOnion]

So what you want is a salary cap figure that includes non shared revenue? So now this figure could become higher than some teams total revenues? As you have stated above (in another post) some markets WILL ALWAYS have more local revenues than others. So using this source of income, without pulling it, will put the small markers at a disadvange right? So what happens is a teams salary spent on players still depends on its ability to create revenue. HELLO MLB!!!

I would like to keep a real salary cap. I do not care if you pool these revenue sources or exclude them, but to use them and not pool them you create a FAKE cap.

First off, I would prefer everything to stay the way it is. But I am just disclosing what I believe the facts to be.I think we are getting to the crux of the problem. Much of the NFL's growth in the past 10 years has been local revenues. The players want a cut of it and I am having a hard time critizing them for it.

What do you suppose the solution is?

 

[wdh76]

First off, I would prefer everything to stay the way it is. But I am just disclosing what I believe the facts to be.

I think we are getting to the crux of the problem. Much of the NFL's growth in the past 10 years has been local revenues. The players want a cut of it and I am having a hard time critizing them for it.

What do you suppose the solution is?

I agree with you here. This is a tough call and that is why there is no deal yet. If I were Tags I would think the lesser of two evils would be to go to the owners and say that for the good of the league local revenue to some extent needs to be shared (whatever they include in the cap figure). If they decide not to do this be prepared for your league to soon resemble MLB and total revenue of the NFL to drop.

 

[BlueOnion]

First off, I would prefer everything to stay the way it is. But I am just disclosing what I believe the facts to be.

I think we are getting to the crux of the problem. Much of the NFL's growth in the past 10 years has been local revenues. The players want a cut of it and I am having a hard time critizing them for it.

What do you suppose the solution is?

I agree with you here. This is a tough call and that is why there is no deal yet. If I were Tags I would think the lesser of two evils would be to go to the owners and say that for the good of the league local revenue to some extent needs to be shared (whatever they include in the cap figure). If they decide not to do this be prepared for your league to soon resemble MLB and total revenue of the NFL to drop.

So do you think the owners should just share revenue or should owners share revenue, expense and business responsibility in each of the 32 markets?

 

[wdh76]

First off, I would prefer everything to stay the way it is.  But I am just disclosing what I believe the facts to be.

I think we are getting to the crux of the problem.  Much of the NFL's growth in the past 10 years has been local revenues.  The players want a cut of it and I am having a hard time critizing them for it.

What do you suppose the solution is?

I agree with you here. This is a tough call and that is why there is no deal yet. If I were Tags I would think the lesser of two evils would be to go to the owners and say that for the good of the league local revenue to some extent needs to be shared (whatever they include in the cap figure). If they decide not to do this be prepared for your league to soon resemble MLB and total revenue of the NFL to drop.

So do you think the owners should just share revenue or should owners share revenue, expense and business responsibility in each of the 32 markets?

To give this answer due justice we would have to consider each source of income, how much control each owner has on it and to what level it should be included in the cap figure. If it comes down to the league wanting to include naming rights of a staduim in the salary cap thats fine. Any shared revenue is under league review. So if a team decides not to sell its name and there is an offer out there the league would be able to vote and must get a super majority to make the team sell the name.

 

[BlueOnion]

First off, I would prefer everything to stay the way it is. But I am just disclosing what I believe the facts to be.

I think we are getting to the crux of the problem. Much of the NFL's growth in the past 10 years has been local revenues. The players want a cut of it and I am having a hard time critizing them for it.

What do you suppose the solution is?

I agree with you here. This is a tough call and that is why there is no deal yet. If I were Tags I would think the lesser of two evils would be to go to the owners and say that for the good of the league local revenue to some extent needs to be shared (whatever they include in the cap figure). If they decide not to do this be prepared for your league to soon resemble MLB and total revenue of the NFL to drop.

So do you think the owners should just share revenue or should owners share revenue, expense and business responsibility in each of the 32 markets?

To give this answer due justice we would have to consider each source of income, how much control each owner has on it and to what level it should be included in the cap figure. If it comes down to the league wanting to include naming rights of a staduim in the salary cap thats fine. Any shared revenue is under league review. So if a team decides not to sell its name and there is an offer out there the league would be able to vote and must get a super majority to make the team sell the name.

I like this too and this is what Daniel Snyder and Jerry Jones want. It is the small market owners who are opposing this. The Roonies don't want to run every business decision by Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder first and the Packer shareholders don't want to do this either.This is the hold up and the small market owners are the ones under the gun. The big market owners could not careless if an agreement is reached or not reached.

 

[wdh76]

First off, I would prefer everything to stay the way it is.  But I am just disclosing what I believe the facts to be.

I think we are getting to the crux of the problem.  Much of the NFL's growth in the past 10 years has been local revenues.  The players want a cut of it and I am having a hard time critizing them for it.

What do you suppose the solution is?

I agree with you here. This is a tough call and that is why there is no deal yet. If I were Tags I would think the lesser of two evils would be to go to the owners and say that for the good of the league local revenue to some extent needs to be shared (whatever they include in the cap figure). If they decide not to do this be prepared for your league to soon resemble MLB and total revenue of the NFL to drop.

So do you think the owners should just share revenue or should owners share revenue, expense and business responsibility in each of the 32 markets?

To give this answer due justice we would have to consider each source of income, how much control each owner has on it and to what level it should be included in the cap figure. If it comes down to the league wanting to include naming rights of a staduim in the salary cap thats fine. Any shared revenue is under league review. So if a team decides not to sell its name and there is an offer out there the league would be able to vote and must get a super majority to make the team sell the name.

I like this too and this is what Daniel Snyder and Jerry Jones want. It is the small market owners who are opposing this. The Roonies don't want to run every business decision by Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder first and the Packer shareholders don't want to do this either.This is the hold up and the small market owners are the ones under the gun. The big market owners could not careless if an agreement is reached or not reached.

Well then I say as a samll market fan to small market owners GET OVER IT AND SAVE THE LEAGUE!!! As long as they have the say over what happens to there team unless a supermajority disagree, what is their issue?

 

[BlueOnion]

First off, I would prefer everything to stay the way it is. But I am just disclosing what I believe the facts to be.

I think we are getting to the crux of the problem. Much of the NFL's growth in the past 10 years has been local revenues. The players want a cut of it and I am having a hard time critizing them for it.

What do you suppose the solution is?

I agree with you here. This is a tough call and that is why there is no deal yet. If I were Tags I would think the lesser of two evils would be to go to the owners and say that for the good of the league local revenue to some extent needs to be shared (whatever they include in the cap figure). If they decide not to do this be prepared for your league to soon resemble MLB and total revenue of the NFL to drop.

So do you think the owners should just share revenue or should owners share revenue, expense and business responsibility in each of the 32 markets?

To give this answer due justice we would have to consider each source of income, how much control each owner has on it and to what level it should be included in the cap figure. If it comes down to the league wanting to include naming rights of a staduim in the salary cap thats fine. Any shared revenue is under league review. So if a team decides not to sell its name and there is an offer out there the league would be able to vote and must get a super majority to make the team sell the name.

I like this too and this is what Daniel Snyder and Jerry Jones want. It is the small market owners who are opposing this. The Roonies don't want to run every business decision by Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder first and the Packer shareholders don't want to do this either.This is the hold up and the small market owners are the ones under the gun. The big market owners could not careless if an agreement is reached or not reached.

Well then I say as a samll market fan to small market owners GET OVER IT AND SAVE THE LEAGUE!!! As long as they have the say over what happens to there team unless a supermajority disagree, what is their issue?

I am sure it is a more he-said, she-said and I am sure the big owners are equal to blame. The following is just my own speculation without knowing the actual details.- Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder [behind closed doors] may be lobbying for large markets who generate the most local revenue to have input on the smaller markets, but I am not so sure they may be open to others telling them how to run their teams (speculation based on Jones and Snyder personalities). However, it makes sense. If you and I are running to two companies and we will share revenue, I think it would be understandable if you are pulling in 3x the revenues and wanted to have more input on my half of the business.

- Much of the local revenue revolves around stadiums. Although Snyder and Kraft have complete autonomy on the finances (Spending and revenue) of their stadium, this is not the case in other cities where the city (Tax payers) own portion of the stadiums.

- Who is to make sacrifices? It is easy for us to question Daniel Snyder, "You don't need ALL that 50 million from your luxury seats this season do you?" But we would have to give Daniel Snyder the same merit if he was to question the Roonies, "You don't really need to live in a 500,000 house in Pittsburgh do you?" Someone will have to make some sacrifices.

 

[GregR_2]

...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 ...

Right. If revenue-sharing meant a team had no incentive to maximize revenues then that might be a problem. But it isn't which is why that isn't a problem.If you are making money on your own, if you maximize your profit, your profit goes up.If you and I and Blue Onion are sharing all our revenue, if you maximize your profit, your profit still goes up. So you still have the same incentive of more profits. Yes, you get to keep less of those maximized profits, but there is another added bonus.The difference is that now all 3 of us would have the incentive that all 3 of us maximize our profits. In the case of the NFL, that means that it is in the interest of all owners to keep every franchise fielding a competitive team and being run in a competent manner since how the other franchise does affects everyone else's bottom line.That isn't the case in baseball, where if a team choses to pay bottom dollar for their roster, the rest of the league has less reason to take steps to make them be competitive. End result, the NFL has prospered over baseball.

 

[BlueOnion]

That isn't the case in baseball, where if a team choses to pay bottom dollar for their roster, the rest of the league has less reason to take steps to make them be competitive. End result, the NFL has prospered over baseball.

The disparity in baseball is stretched across 70%-85% [guessing] of all revenue streams. In the NFL, this disparity is only stretching over 15%-20% of the revenue streams. This is largely because the Yankees have a monopoly over the New York radio and television market and the Brewers have a monopoly over the Milwaukee radio and television market. In the NFL, the national television contract will always be shared, which is well over 65% of team revenue alone. There are also gate receipts and merchandising which are shared revenues (which might be another 10% to 15%).Again, all the numbers above are speculative on my part...but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

 

[wdh76]

First off, I would prefer everything to stay the way it is.  But I am just disclosing what I believe the facts to be.

I think we are getting to the crux of the problem.  Much of the NFL's growth in the past 10 years has been local revenues.  The players want a cut of it and I am having a hard time critizing them for it.

What do you suppose the solution is?

I agree with you here. This is a tough call and that is why there is no deal yet. If I were Tags I would think the lesser of two evils would be to go to the owners and say that for the good of the league local revenue to some extent needs to be shared (whatever they include in the cap figure). If they decide not to do this be prepared for your league to soon resemble MLB and total revenue of the NFL to drop.

So do you think the owners should just share revenue or should owners share revenue, expense and business responsibility in each of the 32 markets?

To give this answer due justice we would have to consider each source of income, how much control each owner has on it and to what level it should be included in the cap figure. If it comes down to the league wanting to include naming rights of a staduim in the salary cap thats fine. Any shared revenue is under league review. So if a team decides not to sell its name and there is an offer out there the league would be able to vote and must get a super majority to make the team sell the name.

I like this too and this is what Daniel Snyder and Jerry Jones want. It is the small market owners who are opposing this. The Roonies don't want to run every business decision by Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder first and the Packer shareholders don't want to do this either.This is the hold up and the small market owners are the ones under the gun. The big market owners could not careless if an agreement is reached or not reached.

Well then I say as a samll market fan to small market owners GET OVER IT AND SAVE THE LEAGUE!!! As long as they have the say over what happens to there team unless a supermajority disagree, what is their issue?

I am sure it is a more he-said, she-said and I am sure the big owners are equal to blame. The following is just my own speculation without knowing the actual details.- Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder [behind closed doors] may be lobbying for large markets who generate the most local revenue to have input on the smaller markets, but I am not so sure they may be open to others telling them how to run their teams (speculation based on Jones and Snyder personalities). However, it makes sense. If you and I are running to two companies and we will share revenue, I think it would be understandable if you are pulling in 3x the revenues and wanted to have more input on my half of the business.

- Much of the local revenue revolves around stadiums. Although Snyder and Kraft have complete autonomy on the finances (Spending and revenue) of their stadium, this is not the case in other cities where the city (Tax payers) own portion of the stadiums.

- Who is to make sacrifices? It is easy for us to question Daniel Snyder, "You don't need ALL that 50 million from your luxury seats this season do you?" But we would have to give Daniel Snyder the same merit if he was to question the Roonies, "You don't really need to live in a 500,000 house in Pittsburgh do you?" Someone will have to make some sacrifices.

Fair enough, but if the league goes uncapped the NFL as a whole is going to suffer. The large market teams might not feel it at first (or ever as much as the small market teams), but total revenus will eventually fall if they go the way of MLB. Broadcasters are already losing money to air games to get the viewership. If the ratings dip the TV money will start to dry up too.

 

[AB in DC]

Again, all the numbers above are speculative on my part...but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Fixed.

 

[BlueOnion]

Fair enough, but if the league goes uncapped the NFL as a whole is going to suffer. The large market teams might not feel it at first (or ever as much as the small market teams), but total revenus will eventually fall if they go the way of MLB. Broadcasters are already losing money to air games to get the viewership. If the ratings dip the TV money will start to dry up too.

I think the club it hurts the most is favorit team, the Vikings. As it is right the state owns the Metrodome and the Vikings get almost no local revenue.We'll see though.