Jags owner admits Wilson was right about the CBA (1 Viewer)

[GroveDiesel]

LINK

Ralph Wilson has the support of at least one fellow National Football League owner when it comes to opposing the recently approved labor deal with players.

Wilson, owner of the Buffalo Bills, has complained loudly that the new collective bargaining agreement will be harmful to small-market franchises because it pays too much -- 60 percent of all revenues -- to players.

Though he voted in favor of the pact Wayne Weaver, owner of the Jacksonville Jaguars -- like Buffalo, a small-market franchise -- told the Florida Times-Union, Wilson's concerns are real.

"It turns out," Weaver said, "that Ralph was right, and he was far ahead of many of us."

The Bills were one of just two teams -- the Cincinnati Bengals were the other -- to vote against the CBA. Weaver told the paper he voted for the agreement because it was the lesser of two evils, that is, a deal that is flawed versus no deal at all.

"People portrayed Ralph as this older guy who wasn't thinking clearly," Weaver said. "Ralph was thinking just fine. He understood the situation perfectly."

The Bills have since lobbied to generate political support at the federal and state levels of government. In particular, Wilson has demonstrated concern in how the NFL will determine formulas for revenue-sharing and how it might impact the team's long-term future in Buffalo.

NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue recently guaranteed Wilson a seat on an committee of eight owners that will ultimately establish policy for revenue-sharing, long a hallmark of the NFL's financial success. 

 

[JaxBill]

Here's the Times-Union article in question:

Bills' owner no fool, says Jags' Weaver

By MIKE FREEMAN, The Times-Union

Sitting in his office Tuesday, Wayne Weaver was basking in the glow of a solid draft when the subject quickly shifted to a different topic: Weaver strongly defending Buffalo Bills owner Ralph Wilson.

Not long ago, the NFL's owners and players struck a deal lauded by both sides as something that would engender labor peace for years to come.

While the deal avoided potentially ugly consequences at the time, what is now not generally known is just how problematic the labor situation remains.

Despite ratifying the deal, a substantial number of owners, mainly those in smaller markets, remain concerned about the long-term health of lower-revenue franchises. Some owners are so worried they believe drastic adjustments might be needed to the collective bargaining agreement in order for smaller-market teams to survive in the NFL.

"Without some kind of long-term structural change to the way we do business in the NFL," Weaver explained, "our current system is unsustainable."

Weaver did not want to turn our talk into a complaint session about small-market vs. big-market politics. Instead, Weaver felt passionately that he needed to stand up for Wilson, the longtime owner of the Bills, whose image was savaged during the labor talks.

"It turns out," Weaver said, "that Ralph was right, and he was far ahead of many of us."

Weaver is referring to how, in the moments and days after the ratification of the agreement, Wilson stated how he was confused about the particulars of the deal. There were quips made by both the press and others about the 87-year-old Wilson's mental acuity.

"People portrayed Ralph as this older guy who wasn't thinking clearly," Weaver said. "Ralph was thinking just fine. He understood the situation perfectly."

Buffalo and the Cincinnati Bengals cast the only two votes against the deal. Weaver said he voted for the agreement because it was the lesser of two evils -- a deal that is flawed vs. no deal at all.

Despite sky-high earnings, some owners maintain that the new agreement, which pays players an additional $150 million more per year, does not deal with how small-market operating costs will eventually surpass revenue streams.

Wilson believes the Bills will lose $5 million to $10 million this year, according to the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle, and more in future years. That is because 65 cents of every dollar will go to the players.

Weaver says the Jaguars are not in as dire a situation as the Bills, mainly because Buffalo is losing population -- which means lost potential ticket and other revenue -- while Jacksonville and the surrounding areas are gaining in populace. Yet, Weaver still believes the current system needs fixing.

Weaver also said:

The selection of running back Maurice Drew has nothing to do with Fred Taylor, and Taylor will definitely be a significant part of the team's offense next year. "There are still only a few people in this league who can do what Fred does," Weaver said.

Because of an alluring Jaguars schedule and what looks to be a good team, Weaver does not expect any television blackouts this season. "You build fans by being on TV, so that's important," Weaver explained.

There is a chance the team could sell most, if not all, of its vital premium seats this season.

"I'm crossing my fingers," Weaver said.

 

[Black Box]

:ConspiracyTheory:

Perhaps the Bills purposely burned their picks on guys they could have taken lower in order to draft more "affordable" players. Would also explain the strange first round trade up for a second round guy.. less money for the player, with the added bonus of having to sign one less player.

 

[GroveDiesel]

:ConspiracyTheory:

Perhaps the Bills purposely burned their picks on guys they could have taken lower in order to draft more "affordable" players. Would also explain the strange first round trade up for a second round guy.. less money for the player, with the added bonus of having to sign one less player.



<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, if McCargo really would have been there in the 2nd round, then Buffalo made the wrong financial move because now they have to pay him as a 1st rounder instead of as a 2nd rounder. You can't go into contract negotiations and say "Well, Mel Kiper thought that you were a 3rd rounder so we'll offer you late 2nd round money even though we traded up to draft you in the 3rd."And yeah, the Bills don't have that extra 3rd rounder to pay, but I bet that the difference between that 2nd and 1st round slot is more than what a 3rd rounder would get.

 

[Black Box]

Actually, if McCargo really would have been there in the 2nd round, then Buffalo made the wrong financial move because now they have to pay him as a 1st rounder instead of as a 2nd rounder.  You can't go into contract negotiations and say "Well, Mel Kiper thought that you were a 3rd rounder so we'll offer you late 2nd round money even though we traded up to draft you in the 3rd."

And yeah, the Bills don't have that extra 3rd rounder to pay, but I bet that the difference between that 2nd and 1st round slot is more than what a 3rd rounder would get.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, that's true, but I still like a good conspiracy theory!Oh, and when is Flutie going to join the front office out there in Buffalo?

 

[Big Score]

Wilson believes the Bills will lose $5 million to $10 million this year, according to the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle, and more in future years. That is because 65 cents of every dollar will go to the players.

I'm sure there's something I'm missing here.How does 58.9% = 65 cents of every dollar?

Somebody help me out please.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Actually, if McCargo really would have been there in the 2nd round, then Buffalo made the wrong financial move because now they have to pay him as a 1st rounder instead of as a 2nd rounder.  You can't go into contract negotiations and say "Well, Mel Kiper thought that you were a 3rd rounder so we'll offer you late 2nd round money even though we traded up to draft you in the 3rd."

And yeah, the Bills don't have that extra 3rd rounder to pay, but I bet that the difference between that 2nd and 1st round slot is more than what a 3rd rounder would get.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, that's true, but I still like a good conspiracy theory!Oh, and when is Flutie going to join the front office out there in Buffalo?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He's not old enough. He's like a child to them.

 

[DrJ]

Wilson believes the Bills will lose $5 million to $10 million this year, according to the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle, and more in future years. That is because 65 cents of every dollar will go to the players.

I'm sure there's something I'm missing here.How does 58.9% = 65 cents of every dollar?

Somebody help me out please.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is that 58.9% their salary, or their total compensation? You have to figure that the league pensions and things cost additional money.

 

[fatness]

Sorry, I'm still not convinced Wilson understands the CBA. I'm also not sure Levy understands the draft. This thread ought to be titled " Jags owner decides to lobby for more money like Wilson".

 

[BlueOnion]

Is anybody on the side of these NFL owners who don't have any other business ventures (other than their franchise) and exist in a small market such as Jacksonville or Buffalo?

I expect Bill and Jaguar fans to be defending these cheap\poor owners, but are any non Bill\Jaguar fans defending them? And if so, why?

 

[T Man]

:ConspiracyTheory:

Perhaps the Bills purposely burned their picks on guys they could have taken lower in order to draft more "affordable" players. Would also explain the strange first round trade up for a second round guy.. less money for the player, with the added bonus of having to sign one less player.



<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, if McCargo really would have been there in the 2nd round, then Buffalo made the wrong financial move because now they have to pay him as a 1st rounder instead of as a 2nd rounder. You can't go into contract negotiations and say "Well, Mel Kiper thought that you were a 3rd rounder so we'll offer you late 2nd round money even though we traded up to draft you in the 3rd."And yeah, the Bills don't have that extra 3rd rounder to pay, but I bet that the difference between that 2nd and 1st round slot is more than what a 3rd rounder would get.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Correct. Although this was probably not in the thought process, IIRC the CBA allows for a longer contractual term for first rounders then those drafted in subsequent rounds. Something like 5-6 years for 1st rounders, ad 3 years with an option for a fourth in rounds 2-7. If he pans out, the extra year for McCargo may be worth it,.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Wilson believes the Bills will lose $5 million to $10 million this year, according to the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle, and more in future years. That is because 65 cents of every dollar will go to the players.

I'm sure there's something I'm missing here.How does 58.9% = 65 cents of every dollar?

Somebody help me out please.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I could be wrong here, this is just my conjecture:The 58.9% applies to the total league revenues. That number is going to fluctuate by team. The Bills bring in less total revenue than other teams so for them their payroll is 65% of their total revenues. For a team like the Redskins the percentage is probably more like 50-52%.

 

[Black Box]

Oh, and when is Flutie going to join the front office out there in Buffalo?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He's not old enough. He's like a child to them.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Zing!

 

[BlueOnion]

Wilson believes the Bills will lose $5 million to $10 million this year, according to the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle, and more in future years. That is because 65 cents of every dollar will go to the players.

I'm sure there's something I'm missing here.How does 58.9% = 65 cents of every dollar?

Somebody help me out please.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I could be wrong here, this is just my conjecture:The 58.9% applies to the total league revenues. That number is going to fluctuate by team. The Bills bring in less total revenue than other teams so for them their payroll is 65% of their total revenues. For a team like the Redskins the percentage is probably more like 50-52%.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This makes complete sense, although there was talk about additional revenue sharing; something about the top 10 teams helping the bottom 10 teams.

 

[fatness]

PFT link 1

A league source with knowledge of the discussions regarding the potential factors that will influence a team's eligibility for supplemental revenue sharing, but who has asked not to be identified due to the sensitivity of the information (sorry, we were just reading Newsweek) has told us that there are no current plans to disqualify new owners of NFL teams from getting an extra piece of the pie.

Per the source, the only discussions that have occurred to date regarding supplemental revenue sharing and changes in ownership relate to the extent to which the league would be entitled to recoup past payments made to a low-revenue team whose balance sheet has been artificially enhanced by the subsidies from the pool of traditionally unshared monies into which the teams with the highest revenues will be paying.

In other words, if after Ralph Wilson passes his estate attempts to sell the team for, say, $800 million, someone (whether it's Wilson's estate or the buyer) could be required to make a payment back to the league as a reflection of the reality that supplemental revenue sharing has inflated the book value of the team.

And this isn't a new concept, we're told.  The notion of the league potentially being reimbursed has been part of the G-3 program, through which the NFL provides money for the construction of stadiums.  If an owner is going to sell the team and the stadium, it's only fair for the league to get back some of the money, since league money has put the owner in position to finagle the final price to be paid.

"Fair" is the key word here.  If Ralph Wilson gets extra money for the next five years due to his franchise's financial woes in Western New York, Wilson's estate shouldn't be permitted to keep the additional profit, from the sale of a team that Wilson bought for $25,000, that traces directly to the extra money he has gotten from the supplemental revenue sharing program.

It's not clear whether Wilson's claims regarding the disqualification of a new owner from supplement revenue sharing is the result of misinformation, or misrepresentation.  Either way, Wilson's contention is way off base.

PFT link 2

It's now becoming increasingly apparent to us that Bills owner Ralph Wilson is hoping to influence the impending process of determining the specific qualifiers for supplemental revenue sharing.  As we reported last week, Tagliabue soon will be appointing a committee to identify the threshold requirements for the low-earning teams to receive a piece of the pie bigger than the revenue that currently is shared by all 32 franchises.  With those factors not yet decided, Wilson's recent P.R. offensive is aimed, we believe, at getting the best deal possible for the small market teams.

But Wilson's strategy could be decidedly short-sighted.  Even if his current ploy prevails, the league and the union could be back at the bargaining table as soon as late 2008, with the new CBA expiring after the 2009 season.  And if the large-market teams believe that Wilson and the other small-market teams used political forces to skew the qualifiers in their favor, the fight over revenue sharing will be even nastier the next time around.

 

[trader jake]

if someone who (kind of) understands this CBA could explain to me why the deal was good for these small market teams i'd appreciate it

 

[Black Box]

PFT link 2

It's now becoming increasingly apparent to us that Bills owner Ralph Wilson is hoping to influence the impending process of determining the specific qualifiers for supplemental revenue sharing.  As we reported last week, Tagliabue soon will be appointing a committee to identify the threshold requirements for the low-earning teams to receive a piece of the pie bigger than the revenue that currently is shared by all 32 franchises.  With those factors not yet decided, Wilson's recent P.R. offensive is aimed, we believe, at getting the best deal possible for the small market teams.

But Wilson's strategy could be decidedly short-sighted.  Even if his current ploy prevails, the league and the union could be back at the bargaining table as soon as late 2008, with the new CBA expiring after the 2009 season.  And if the large-market teams believe that Wilson and the other small-market teams used political forces to skew the qualifiers in their favor, the fight over revenue sharing will be even nastier the next time around.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ralph Wilson: out of touch old guy?Ralph Wilson: super genius?

Will the real Ralph Wilson please stand up?

 

[BlueOnion]

if someone who (kind of) understands this CBA could explain to me why the deal was good for these small market teams i'd appreciate it

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is still a very large National Television Contract. Team merchandising is doing very well. The NFL Channel is taking off. These are revenue streams still split 32 ways.

 

[GroveDiesel]

PFT link 1

A league source with knowledge of the discussions regarding the potential factors that will influence a team's eligibility for supplemental revenue sharing, but who has asked not to be identified due to the sensitivity of the information (sorry, we were just reading Newsweek) has told us that there are no current plans to disqualify new owners of NFL teams from getting an extra piece of the pie.

Per the source, the only discussions that have occurred to date regarding supplemental revenue sharing and changes in ownership relate to the extent to which the league would be entitled to recoup past payments made to a low-revenue team whose balance sheet has been artificially enhanced by the subsidies from the pool of traditionally unshared monies into which the teams with the highest revenues will be paying.

In other words, if after Ralph Wilson passes his estate attempts to sell the team for, say, $800 million, someone (whether it's Wilson's estate or the buyer) could be required to make a payment back to the league as a reflection of the reality that supplemental revenue sharing has inflated the book value of the team.

And this isn't a new concept, we're told.  The notion of the league potentially being reimbursed has been part of the G-3 program, through which the NFL provides money for the construction of stadiums.  If an owner is going to sell the team and the stadium, it's only fair for the league to get back some of the money, since league money has put the owner in position to finagle the final price to be paid.

"Fair" is the key word here.  If Ralph Wilson gets extra money for the next five years due to his franchise's financial woes in Western New York, Wilson's estate shouldn't be permitted to keep the additional profit, from the sale of a team that Wilson bought for $25,000, that traces directly to the extra money he has gotten from the supplemental revenue sharing program.

It's not clear whether Wilson's claims regarding the disqualification of a new owner from supplement revenue sharing is the result of misinformation, or misrepresentation.  Either way, Wilson's contention is way off base.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So I assume that when Robert Kraft and Al Davis die their teams will be required to give a huge percentage of their team's networth to the Bills since Ralph Wilson previously kept both of them afloat many years ago with his personal money?

 

[ConstruxBoy]

PFT link 1

A league source with knowledge of the discussions regarding the potential factors that will influence a team's eligibility for supplemental revenue sharing, but who has asked not to be identified due to the sensitivity of the information (sorry, we were just reading Newsweek) has told us that there are no current plans to disqualify new owners of NFL teams from getting an extra piece of the pie.

Per the source, the only discussions that have occurred to date regarding supplemental revenue sharing and changes in ownership relate to the extent to which the league would be entitled to recoup past payments made to a low-revenue team whose balance sheet has been artificially enhanced by the subsidies from the pool of traditionally unshared monies into which the teams with the highest revenues will be paying.

In other words, if after Ralph Wilson passes his estate attempts to sell the team for, say, $800 million, someone (whether it's Wilson's estate or the buyer) could be required to make a payment back to the league as a reflection of the reality that supplemental revenue sharing has inflated the book value of the team.

And this isn't a new concept, we're told.  The notion of the league potentially being reimbursed has been part of the G-3 program, through which the NFL provides money for the construction of stadiums.  If an owner is going to sell the team and the stadium, it's only fair for the league to get back some of the money, since league money has put the owner in position to finagle the final price to be paid.

"Fair" is the key word here.  If Ralph Wilson gets extra money for the next five years due to his franchise's financial woes in Western New York, Wilson's estate shouldn't be permitted to keep the additional profit, from the sale of a team that Wilson bought for $25,000, that traces directly to the extra money he has gotten from the supplemental revenue sharing program.

It's not clear whether Wilson's claims regarding the disqualification of a new owner from supplement revenue sharing is the result of misinformation, or misrepresentation.  Either way, Wilson's contention is way off base.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So I assume that when Robert Kraft and Al Davis die their teams will be required to give a huge percentage of their team's networth to the Bills since Ralph Wilson previously kept both of them afloat many years ago with his personal money?
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No ####. It's amazing how little people remember about the past.

 

[GroveDiesel]

if someone who (kind of) understands this CBA could explain to me why the deal was good for these small market teams i'd appreciate it

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is still a very large National Television Contract. Team merchandising is doing very well. The NFL Channel is taking off. These are revenue streams still split 32 ways.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sure, and that's a good argument as the national revenues make up a huge portion of the overall revenues. But it still ignores the very real fact that some markets are simply larger than other markets and have an inherent advantage when it comes to bringing in local revenues. Yes there are small market teams that have still done very well for themselves, but that doesn't make the overall argument invalid.Honestly, I think that smaller market teams might just be better off spending more money on their scouting, front office and coaching and cutting back their payroll. It's not like the Bills won't be just about maxed out on the salary cap. There's a salary floor too and the Bills could spend less if they wanted to. Put some extra money into scouting and coaching and find more bargain guys to fill in that roster. Let Daniel Snyder continue to toss cash at every big name free agent while laughing maniacally. There's no rule that says that the Bills have to max out their cap every season. It would probably be harder to stay competitive spending less, but it can be done.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

if someone who (kind of) understands this CBA could explain to me why the deal was good for these small market teams i'd appreciate it

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is still a very large National Television Contract. Team merchandising is doing very well. The NFL Channel is taking off. These are revenue streams still split 32 ways.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sure, and that's a good argument as the national revenues make up a huge portion of the overall revenues. But it still ignores the very real fact that some markets are simply larger than other markets and have an inherent advantage when it comes to bringing in local revenues. Yes there are small market teams that have still done very well for themselves, but that doesn't make the overall argument invalid.Honestly, I think that smaller market teams might just be better off spending more money on their scouting, front office and coaching and cutting back their payroll. It's not like the Bills won't be just about maxed out on the salary cap. There's a salary floor too and the Bills could spend less if they wanted to. Put some extra money into scouting and coaching and find more bargain guys to fill in that roster. Let Daniel Snyder continue to toss cash at every big name free agent while laughing maniacally. There's no rule that says that the Bills have to max out their cap every season. It would probably be harder to stay competitive spending less, but it can be done.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Moneyball.

 

[trader jake]

if someone who (kind of) understands this CBA could explain to me why the deal was good for these small market teams i'd appreciate it

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is still a very large National Television Contract. Team merchandising is doing very well. The NFL Channel is taking off. These are revenue streams still split 32 ways.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sure, and that's a good argument as the national revenues make up a huge portion of the overall revenues. But it still ignores the very real fact that some markets are simply larger than other markets and have an inherent advantage when it comes to bringing in local revenues. Yes there are small market teams that have still done very well for themselves, but that doesn't make the overall argument invalid.Honestly, I think that smaller market teams might just be better off spending more money on their scouting, front office and coaching and cutting back their payroll. It's not like the Bills won't be just about maxed out on the salary cap. There's a salary floor too and the Bills could spend less if they wanted to. Put some extra money into scouting and coaching and find more bargain guys to fill in that roster. Let Daniel Snyder continue to toss cash at every big name free agent while laughing maniacally. There's no rule that says that the Bills have to max out their cap every season. It would probably be harder to stay competitive spending less, but it can be done.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i already hate that sport's financial structure (baseball). see examples of this in action: minnesota twins & oakland athletics vs. new york yankees & boston red sox

 

[trader jake]

Moneyball.

exactly. it's a great strategy based on baseballs uneven playing field, but as a fan of the NFL why would i support this structure taking hold in any way? it's bs for the fans of the league (unless you happen to be a fan of about 6 or 7 teams)

 

[Black Box]

if someone who (kind of) understands this CBA could explain to me why the deal was good for these small market teams i'd appreciate it

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is still a very large National Television Contract. Team merchandising is doing very well. The NFL Channel is taking off. These are revenue streams still split 32 ways.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sure, and that's a good argument as the national revenues make up a huge portion of the overall revenues. But it still ignores the very real fact that some markets are simply larger than other markets and have an inherent advantage when it comes to bringing in local revenues. Yes there are small market teams that have still done very well for themselves, but that doesn't make the overall argument invalid.Honestly, I think that smaller market teams might just be better off spending more money on their scouting, front office and coaching and cutting back their payroll. It's not like the Bills won't be just about maxed out on the salary cap. There's a salary floor too and the Bills could spend less if they wanted to. Put some extra money into scouting and coaching and find more bargain guys to fill in that roster. Let Daniel Snyder continue to toss cash at every big name free agent while laughing maniacally. There's no rule that says that the Bills have to max out their cap every season. It would probably be harder to stay competitive spending less, but it can be done.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I guess we'll see how well their scouting department is doing in a few years. Keep an eye on those first rounders from this year!

 

[BlueOnion]

if someone who (kind of) understands this CBA could explain to me why the deal was good for these small market teams i'd appreciate it

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is still a very large National Television Contract. Team merchandising is doing very well. The NFL Channel is taking off. These are revenue streams still split 32 ways.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sure, and that's a good argument as the national revenues make up a huge portion of the overall revenues. But it still ignores the very real fact that some markets are simply larger than other markets and have an inherent advantage when it comes to bringing in local revenues. Yes there are small market teams that have still done very well for themselves, but that doesn't make the overall argument invalid.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In addition, some franchises are run better than others too. I don't think Snyder, Jones and Kraft are that opposed to sharing revenue, but they would also like equal input on how the franchises are being run that they are subsidizing. As a small market owner if you want some of Snyder's money, then you have to be willing to extort the local fans like Snyder does too. You cannot simply expect Snyder to extort Redskin fans and then expect a good portion of that money to end up subsidizing Bill fans at Orchard Park.

 

[BlueOnion]

Moneyball.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They win a post season series yet? Moneyball is for those who want to finish 2nd, give me the Marlins business plan and all the World Series Glory that comes with actually winning something.

 

[Davej626]

This is just a ploy Weaver is using to be that second NFL team in LA.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Moneyball.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They win a post season series yet? Moneyball is for those who want to finish 2nd, give me the Marlins business plan and all the World Series Glory that comes with actually winning something.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You would honestly take the Marlin business plan over the A's? The Marlins are lucky to still have a team.

 

[BlueOnion]

Moneyball.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They win a post season series yet? Moneyball is for those who want to finish 2nd, give me the Marlins business plan and all the World Series Glory that comes with actually winning something.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You would honestly take the Marlin business plan over the A's? The Marlins are lucky to still have a team.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In a heart beat. But I also put a precident on winning. If a fan was content with being medicore then I think Moneyball is good plan.

 

[cstu]

Moneyball.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They win a post season series yet? Moneyball is for those who want to finish 2nd, give me the Marlins business plan and all the World Series Glory that comes with actually winning something.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You would honestly take the Marlin business plan over the A's? The Marlins are lucky to still have a team.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Marlins are what makes baseball unwatchable. In order to compete with the Yankees, teams have to win quickly and then dismantle in order to save money. I can't imagine what it's like to be a Marlins fan, if there are any.

 

[cstu]

Moneyball.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They win a post season series yet? Moneyball is for those who want to finish 2nd, give me the Marlins business plan and all the World Series Glory that comes with actually winning something.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You would honestly take the Marlin business plan over the A's? The Marlins are lucky to still have a team.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In a heart beat. But I also put a precident on winning. If a fan was content with being medicore then I think Moneyball is good plan.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What's the point of winning if you have to sell off all your players? That strategy sucks regardless of winning a World Series.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Moneyball.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They win a post season series yet? Moneyball is for those who want to finish 2nd, give me the Marlins business plan and all the World Series Glory that comes with actually winning something.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You would honestly take the Marlin business plan over the A's? The Marlins are lucky to still have a team.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In a heart beat. But I also put a precident on winning. If a fan was content with being medicore then I think Moneyball is good plan.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What's the point of winning if you have to sell off all your players? That strategy sucks regardless of winning a World Series.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you. BO is just crazy here. And really, is Minneapolis that big of a market that you never have to worry about your team?

 

[JaxBill]

Is anybody on the side of these NFL owners who don't have any other business ventures (other than their franchise) and exist in a small market such as Jacksonville or Buffalo?

I expect Bill and Jaguar fans to be defending these cheap\poor owners, but are any non Bill\Jaguar fans defending them?  And if so, why?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

- I wasn't necessarily defending Weaver, merely providing the original article instead of the secondary source.- I think fatness is barking up the right tree. I think Weaver is just planting the seeds for when the CBA gets reopened.

- I think that you'll see that this "Top 10 helps Bottom 10" revenue sharing gets implemented a lot less often then was presented at the talks.

- Weaver is also using this to close out the season ticket sales. The Jags are close to guaranteeing a blackout for every home game. This a huge year for the franchise, because if they couldn't sell out with the kind of schedule they have, that would be very ominous for their future.

- I'm not sure why you call Weaver cheap. The fact is that nobody wants to see a have vs have-not league.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Is anybody on the side of these NFL owners who don't have any other business ventures (other than their franchise) and exist in a small market such as Jacksonville or Buffalo?

I expect Bill and Jaguar fans to be defending these cheap\poor owners, but are any non Bill\Jaguar fans defending them?  And if so, why?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

- I wasn't necessarily defending Weaver, merely providing the original article instead of the secondary source.- I think fatness is barking up the right tree. I think Weaver is just planting the seeds for when the CBA gets reopened.

- I think that you'll see that this "Top 10 helps Bottom 10" revenue sharing gets implemented a lot less often then was presented at the talks.

- Weaver is also using this to close out the season ticket sales. The Jags are close to guaranteeing a blackout for every home game. This a huge year for the franchise, because if they couldn't sell out with the kind of schedule they have, that would be very ominous for their future.

- I'm not sure why you call Weaver cheap. The fact is that nobody wants to see a have vs have-not league.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Blue Onion does.

 

[BlueOnion]

Moneyball.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They win a post season series yet? Moneyball is for those who want to finish 2nd, give me the Marlins business plan and all the World Series Glory that comes with actually winning something.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You would honestly take the Marlin business plan over the A's? The Marlins are lucky to still have a team.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In a heart beat. But I also put a precident on winning. If a fan was content with being medicore then I think Moneyball is good plan.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What's the point of winning if you have to sell off all your players? That strategy sucks regardless of winning a World Series.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tejeda, Giambi, Hudson, Damon????

You have to sell all your players with Moneyball too.

 

[BlueOnion]

Is anybody on the side of these NFL owners who don't have any other business ventures (other than their franchise) and exist in a small market such as Jacksonville or Buffalo?

I expect Bill and Jaguar fans to be defending these cheap\poor owners, but are any non Bill\Jaguar fans defending them?  And if so, why?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

- I wasn't necessarily defending Weaver, merely providing the original article instead of the secondary source.- I think fatness is barking up the right tree. I think Weaver is just planting the seeds for when the CBA gets reopened.

- I think that you'll see that this "Top 10 helps Bottom 10" revenue sharing gets implemented a lot less often then was presented at the talks.

- Weaver is also using this to close out the season ticket sales. The Jags are close to guaranteeing a blackout for every home game. This a huge year for the franchise, because if they couldn't sell out with the kind of schedule they have, that would be very ominous for their future.

- I'm not sure why you call Weaver cheap. The fact is that nobody wants to see a have vs have-not league.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Blue Onion does.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Clearly you are not familar with me.

 

[Black Box]

- I'm not sure why you call Weaver cheap.  The fact is that nobody wants to see a have vs have-not league.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Unless that have-not is a team that you particularly don't like

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Is anybody on the side of these NFL owners who don't have any other business ventures (other than their franchise) and exist in a small market such as Jacksonville or Buffalo?

I expect Bill and Jaguar fans to be defending these cheap\poor owners, but are any non Bill\Jaguar fans defending them?  And if so, why?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

- I wasn't necessarily defending Weaver, merely providing the original article instead of the secondary source.- I think fatness is barking up the right tree. I think Weaver is just planting the seeds for when the CBA gets reopened.

- I think that you'll see that this "Top 10 helps Bottom 10" revenue sharing gets implemented a lot less often then was presented at the talks.

- Weaver is also using this to close out the season ticket sales. The Jags are close to guaranteeing a blackout for every home game. This a huge year for the franchise, because if they couldn't sell out with the kind of schedule they have, that would be very ominous for their future.

- I'm not sure why you call Weaver cheap. The fact is that nobody wants to see a have vs have-not league.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Blue Onion does.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Clearly you are not familar with me.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Isn't that what you just said?? The Marlins business plan of spending wildly on name players for a year or two in order to win the world series leads to a have vs. have not league.

 

[BlueOnion]

Is anybody on the side of these NFL owners who don't have any other business ventures (other than their franchise) and exist in a small market such as Jacksonville or Buffalo?

I expect Bill and Jaguar fans to be defending these cheap\poor owners, but are any non Bill\Jaguar fans defending them?  And if so, why?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

- I wasn't necessarily defending Weaver, merely providing the original article instead of the secondary source.- I think fatness is barking up the right tree. I think Weaver is just planting the seeds for when the CBA gets reopened.

- I think that you'll see that this "Top 10 helps Bottom 10" revenue sharing gets implemented a lot less often then was presented at the talks.

- Weaver is also using this to close out the season ticket sales. The Jags are close to guaranteeing a blackout for every home game. This a huge year for the franchise, because if they couldn't sell out with the kind of schedule they have, that would be very ominous for their future.

- I'm not sure why you call Weaver cheap. The fact is that nobody wants to see a have vs have-not league.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Blue Onion does.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Clearly you are not familar with me.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Isn't that what you just said?? The Marlins business plan of spending wildly on name players for a year or two in order to win the world series leads to a have vs. have not league.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And as a former Twins fan and former MLB fan this would be the model I would prefer if I had to choose between the two. However, as a sports consumer I have opted to turn my back on MLB (not baseball) and not consume any of the product.So although I am arguing Marlin Business Plan over Moneyball, I am not implying I have any respect for the MLB business model.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Is anybody on the side of these NFL owners who don't have any other business ventures (other than their franchise) and exist in a small market such as Jacksonville or Buffalo?

I expect Bill and Jaguar fans to be defending these cheap\poor owners, but are any non Bill\Jaguar fans defending them?  And if so, why?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

- I wasn't necessarily defending Weaver, merely providing the original article instead of the secondary source.- I think fatness is barking up the right tree. I think Weaver is just planting the seeds for when the CBA gets reopened.

- I think that you'll see that this "Top 10 helps Bottom 10" revenue sharing gets implemented a lot less often then was presented at the talks.

- Weaver is also using this to close out the season ticket sales. The Jags are close to guaranteeing a blackout for every home game. This a huge year for the franchise, because if they couldn't sell out with the kind of schedule they have, that would be very ominous for their future.

- I'm not sure why you call Weaver cheap. The fact is that nobody wants to see a have vs have-not league.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Blue Onion does.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Clearly you are not familar with me.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Isn't that what you just said?? The Marlins business plan of spending wildly on name players for a year or two in order to win the world series leads to a have vs. have not league.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And as a former Twins fan and former MLB fan this would be the model I would prefer if I had to choose between the two. However, as a sports consumer I have opted to turn my back on MLB (not baseball) and not consume any of the product.So although I am arguing Marlin Business Plan over Moneyball, I am not implying I have any respect for the MLB business model.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah, OK. Thanks.

 

[BlueOnion]

Is anybody on the side of these NFL owners who don't have any other business ventures (other than their franchise) and exist in a small market such as Jacksonville or Buffalo?

I expect Bill and Jaguar fans to be defending these cheap\poor owners, but are any non Bill\Jaguar fans defending them?  And if so, why?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

- I wasn't necessarily defending Weaver, merely providing the original article instead of the secondary source.- I think fatness is barking up the right tree. I think Weaver is just planting the seeds for when the CBA gets reopened.

- I think that you'll see that this "Top 10 helps Bottom 10" revenue sharing gets implemented a lot less often then was presented at the talks.

- Weaver is also using this to close out the season ticket sales. The Jags are close to guaranteeing a blackout for every home game. This a huge year for the franchise, because if they couldn't sell out with the kind of schedule they have, that would be very ominous for their future.

- I'm not sure why you call Weaver cheap. The fact is that nobody wants to see a have vs have-not league.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Blue Onion does.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Clearly you are not familar with me.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Isn't that what you just said?? The Marlins business plan of spending wildly on name players for a year or two in order to win the world series leads to a have vs. have not league.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And as a former Twins fan and former MLB fan this would be the model I would prefer if I had to choose between the two. However, as a sports consumer I have opted to turn my back on MLB (not baseball) and not consume any of the product.So although I am arguing Marlin Business Plan over Moneyball, I am not implying I have any respect for the MLB business model.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah, OK. Thanks.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I actually have to watch myself in the FFA as I am relentless in attacking MLB and throwing MLB under the bus. I honestly believe they know they are ripping off small market fans with their business model and yet they elect to do nothing about it. So I walked away in 2001.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Is anybody on the side of these NFL owners who don't have any other business ventures (other than their franchise) and exist in a small market such as Jacksonville or Buffalo?

I expect Bill and Jaguar fans to be defending these cheap\poor owners, but are any non Bill\Jaguar fans defending them?  And if so, why?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

- I wasn't necessarily defending Weaver, merely providing the original article instead of the secondary source.- I think fatness is barking up the right tree. I think Weaver is just planting the seeds for when the CBA gets reopened.

- I think that you'll see that this "Top 10 helps Bottom 10" revenue sharing gets implemented a lot less often then was presented at the talks.

- Weaver is also using this to close out the season ticket sales. The Jags are close to guaranteeing a blackout for every home game. This a huge year for the franchise, because if they couldn't sell out with the kind of schedule they have, that would be very ominous for their future.

- I'm not sure why you call Weaver cheap. The fact is that nobody wants to see a have vs have-not league.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Blue Onion does.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Clearly you are not familar with me.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Isn't that what you just said?? The Marlins business plan of spending wildly on name players for a year or two in order to win the world series leads to a have vs. have not league.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And as a former Twins fan and former MLB fan this would be the model I would prefer if I had to choose between the two. However, as a sports consumer I have opted to turn my back on MLB (not baseball) and not consume any of the product.So although I am arguing Marlin Business Plan over Moneyball, I am not implying I have any respect for the MLB business model.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah, OK. Thanks.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I actually have to watch myself in the FFA as I am relentless in attacking MLB and throwing MLB under the bus. I honestly believe they know they are ripping off small market fans with their business model and yet they elect to do nothing about it. So I walked away in 2001.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I walked away in 1994 when my favorite player was hitting .394 on August 19th and they cancelled the season.

 

[BlueOnion]

Is anybody on the side of these NFL owners who don't have any other business ventures (other than their franchise) and exist in a small market such as Jacksonville or Buffalo?

I expect Bill and Jaguar fans to be defending these cheap\poor owners, but are any non Bill\Jaguar fans defending them?  And if so, why?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

- I wasn't necessarily defending Weaver, merely providing the original article instead of the secondary source.- I think fatness is barking up the right tree. I think Weaver is just planting the seeds for when the CBA gets reopened.

- I think that you'll see that this "Top 10 helps Bottom 10" revenue sharing gets implemented a lot less often then was presented at the talks.

- Weaver is also using this to close out the season ticket sales. The Jags are close to guaranteeing a blackout for every home game. This a huge year for the franchise, because if they couldn't sell out with the kind of schedule they have, that would be very ominous for their future.

- I'm not sure why you call Weaver cheap. The fact is that nobody wants to see a have vs have-not league.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Blue Onion does.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Clearly you are not familar with me.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Isn't that what you just said?? The Marlins business plan of spending wildly on name players for a year or two in order to win the world series leads to a have vs. have not league.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And as a former Twins fan and former MLB fan this would be the model I would prefer if I had to choose between the two. However, as a sports consumer I have opted to turn my back on MLB (not baseball) and not consume any of the product.So although I am arguing Marlin Business Plan over Moneyball, I am not implying I have any respect for the MLB business model.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah, OK. Thanks.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I actually have to watch myself in the FFA as I am relentless in attacking MLB and throwing MLB under the bus. I honestly believe they know they are ripping off small market fans with their business model and yet they elect to do nothing about it. So I walked away in 2001.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I walked away in 1994 when my favorite player was hitting .394 on August 19th and they cancelled the season.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Glad to hear your not some robot-zombie who will continue to support a sports league that makes a habit out of crapping on it's fans.

 

[GregR_2]

if someone who (kind of) understands this CBA could explain to me why the deal was good for these small market teams i'd appreciate it

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is still a very large National Television Contract. Team merchandising is doing very well. The NFL Channel is taking off. These are revenue streams still split 32 ways.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The fact is it isn't a good deal for the small market teams. Those things you mentioned were already shared revenue. Nothing is handled differently about them now than before.What is different is that currently non-shared revenue gets included in determining the salary cap. Which means that Team A can make $10m in some venture that isn't revenue shared, and the cause the salary cap to go up leaguewide by about $6m, but Team A only pays 1/32 of that amount to players. Meaning the rest of the league subsidized the other 31/32 of the $6m.

Now there is some additional revenue sharing, but until they work out additional details, at the moment it doesn't look to me like it helps the small market teams much. For example there's the top X teams sharing revenue with the bottom X teams (10 I believe?), but I don't know that it's going to make up for the extra amount they have to spend on salary.

In addition, they put into the new CBA something to try to deal with teams like the Redskins spending a high cash over cap. (That means their payroll, the money they actually spend this year including all of their signing bonuses given this year... is higher than the salary cap, which would prorate those bonuses into future years.) But the only way there is any teeth to the new rule is if all of the bottom market teams spend close to the salary cap. The league payroll (which is not the league cap) has to be higher than a certain trigger percentage before teams that are over it receive penalties. If a smaller market team can't afford as easily to spend close to the cap, the big market team can continue getting away with high cash over cap and rolling that money into future cap years that count on the continued growth to make room for them.

Whether this was a good or bad deal for the small market teams seems that it will come down to what the committee ends up proposing for how to share the additional revenue. At the moment, with those details not having been dealt with yet, I think it's a bad deal.

(And by the way, I'm a fan of a big market team, just in case anyone thinks this view is just homerism)

 

[Wadsworth]

This is just a ploy Weaver is using to be that second NFL team in LA.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So why hasn't he already done it? He's turned down multiple offers to move the Jags and/or sell the Jags. A sports broker told him he could get him "around a billion dollars" for Jags less than a year ago if Wayne was interested. Weaver told him no thanks. Wayne Weaver is not poor and is not cheap. He has stong ties to the city of Jacksonville and has repeatedly committed to keeping the team in town. Jacksonville is a small market, but the people hear are football crazy and the population is growing rapidly. This will be an excellent football market in 10 years. Don't get me wrong, I understand the Jags moving to LA is totally possible. But Weaver doesn't need a ploy to do it.

 

[BlueOnion]

(And by the way, I'm a fan of a big market team, just in case anyone thinks this view is just homerism)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To funny. I am a fan of a small market team but continually argue pro-big market.You bring up some valid points, all of which I agree with. But the core issue is sharing revenue and sharing responsibility.

On the surface the popular expression is 'share revenue', which I think the Giants, Redskins, Cowboys, Patriots et al are willing to do. But the mantra of Wellington Mara and the old school owners was to 'share revenue and share responsibility'. Currently the smaller\poorer markets don't want to share their responsbility with other owners, they just want to hold out their hand, get their cash and be left alone.

Jones, Snyder and Kraft are taking the position, "We don't mind sharing our revenue with you, however you at least have to extend the courtesy to allow us some input on how you run your business."

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Is anybody on the side of these NFL owners who don't have any other business ventures (other than their franchise) and exist in a small market such as Jacksonville or Buffalo?

I expect Bill and Jaguar fans to be defending these cheap\poor owners, but are any non Bill\Jaguar fans defending them?  And if so, why?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

[BlueOnion]

Is anybody on the side of these NFL owners who don't have any other business ventures (other than their franchise) and exist in a small market such as Jacksonville or Buffalo?

I expect Bill and Jaguar fans to be defending these cheap\poor owners, but are any non Bill\Jaguar fans defending them?  And if so, why?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I will say I am glad you are hear, I followed your previous thread a month ago about Ralph Wilson and found it enlightening.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Is anybody on the side of these NFL owners who don't have any other business ventures (other than their franchise) and exist in a small market such as Jacksonville or Buffalo?

I expect Bill and Jaguar fans to be defending these cheap\poor owners, but are any non Bill\Jaguar fans defending them?  And if so, why?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I will say I am glad you are hear, I followed your previous thread a month ago about Ralph Wilson and found it enlightening.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

would love to hear you back up those comments calling Ralph Wilson cheap and poor. TIA.