My Take On the CBA (1 Viewer)

[Bri]

So ultimately if that's REALLY the hang up between the fat cat owners and the small market owners, I agree with Dodds that this will get itself worked out.

the meeting tuesday is in Dallas not in New York. What's that mean to you? anything?

 

[Sack-Religious]

I've flip flopped a couple times on this issue and here is my most recent thought.

All indications are that this is a small market vs. large market issue. The most common argument on the side of the large market owners who carry debt is that they built these stadiums using existing revenue streams to finance them. Further, some would say that it is unfair to take a portion of those revenue streams away from those owners. Normally, I would agree with such a statement. However, the large market owners who paid for these stadiums did so KNOWING that the existing CBA would be expiring at the end of 2006.

So these owners made decisions while knowing that things could change at some point. If they didn't, then they are not as savy as we think they are. Let's not villify the the small market teams as "welfare" cases.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

the only possibility would be a national company (like Microsoft) there isn't a local company or even a Wisconsin-based company that would even DREAM of putting htier name on Lambeau...

besides, most of the likely sources or renaming the stadium have already sponsored "pieces" of the stadium, so they should be ok and are getting namings rights fees of some sort.

Who cares where the money comes from? My point is, if the pack said they were selling the naming rights today, they'd have offers tomorrow. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.

The Packers are different team than most and just talking about renaming the stadium would cause an uproar. I doubt many companies want to get involved in destroying a legendary stadium like that and the negative publicity it would cause.

Regardless, there is a gap in renenue generation because other clubs have sold their naming rights to their fields. If the Packers don't want to sell the naming rights to Lambeau field, that is fine. However, they still have an obligation to close the gap in terms of generating revenue. The alternative would be raising ticket sales so the Packers could subsidize themselves for not selling the naming rights.In what I expect the words of Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones to be, "Don't give me excuses, give me solutions."

Not to jump into a fight that isn't mine, but it has been posted multiple times on this board in the past week that the Packers are a top 10 revenue team. So it would seem that they are not under any obligation to close any gap because there is no gap for them to close. There is no reason to force them to sell the naming rights to their stadium because they have done a perfectly good job raising revenue without selling it.

I believe the Packers are a top-10 team in net revenue, but not gross revenue which I believe seperates the haves and have nots.But lets assume the Packers are a top-10 team in revenue. Shouldn't the Packers try to emulate Wellington Mara and sell the naming rights to their stadium to help subsidize other small market clubs?

I think some Packer fans are perhaps overstating the case against naming rights somewhat. In fact, Brown County residents narrowly approved the concept of naming rights several years ago in a referrendum in connection with the Lambeau rennovations (for which they bore, and continue to bear, the tax burden). Lambeau naming rights were marketed but they did not receive the level of interest the team had hoped for. That was shortly after 9/11 and Enron and the timing was just bad. I don't believe it has been raised since, but it is not an impossibility.That said, I don't understand the comment that the team has an "obligation" to maximise revenue through naming rights. Is this a legal or moral obligation or other? To whom is it owed and on what basis? The Packers sell out every game at 60,000+, their fans travel very well and they are always near the top of the league in merchandising sales. The league - big and small market teams alike - unquestionably benefits from the Packers and I seriously doubt Bob Harlan is taking any heat from anyone at these meetings.

 

[BlueOnion]

I've flip flopped a couple times on this issue and here is my most recent thought.

All indications are that this is a small market vs. large market issue. The most common argument on the side of the large market owners who carry debt is that they built these stadiums using existing revenue streams to finance them. Further, some would say that it is unfair to take a portion of those revenue streams away from those owners. Normally, I would agree with such a statement. However, the large market owners who paid for these stadiums did so KNOWING that the existing CBA would be expiring at the end of 2006.

So these owners made decisions while knowing that things could change at some point. If they didn't, then they are not as savy as we think they are. Let's not villify the the small market teams as "welfare" cases.

Let me say this, I understand the NFLPA is trying to drive a wedge between the small market and large market owners. But everything I have read, the owners have been fairly united on their position, despite their differences behind close doors.I hate to deal in absolutes, but I am almost 100% sure the NFLPA is hoping to destroy the CBA and they want to blame the owners, although the owners seem completely unified.

 

[BlueOnion]

That said, I don't understand the comment that the team has an "obligation" to maximise revenue through naming rights. Is this a legal or moral obligation or other? To whom is it owed and on what basis? The Packers sell out every game at 60,000+, their fans travel very well and they are always near the top of the league in merchandising sales. The league - big and small market teams alike - unquestionably benefits from the Packers and I seriously doubt Bob Harlan is taking any heat from anyone at these meetings.

A bit of fishing trip, but with some weight behind it. What I was asking, if Packer fans don't believe they are a small market and need revenue sharing, how do they feel about subsidizing another franchise?

 

[Footballhead]

NFLPA need to think that players in big market get more $$$ from endorsement and advertising so it all takes care itself. Pinching the small market teams will really ruin the league like what is happening to MLB.

 

[pettifogger]

From what I gather, there's 9-10 owners in the "small market, we need more revenue sharing" camp (Green Bay for example) and also 9-10 in the "super rich marketing genius" camps (Dallas, Wash, NYG, etc.)

Long time FFT'er here...been lurking since before that site went down. I felt the need to register after hearing Green Bay propped up as small-market whiner #1, one too many times. Green Bay is actually in the top ten of revenues. Yes, they do want revenue sharing to be protected and the cap to remain in place, but they are not the ones at the front of that charge. It's being led by the owners in Buffalo and Jacksonville. Green Bay doesn't even have an owner. The Packers are more of a passive player in this, hoping the NFL doesn't screw this up. It might be nitpicking, but I hate seeing Green Bay potentially ragged on by fans of teams in big markets as holding this thing up.I've witnessed it with the Brewers and cringe at any whiff of it aimed in the direction of the Pack.

Hi Mr. A, That is exactly the point I think. It would be a shame if the Packers ever got the point where the Brewers are. Or the Steelers to where the Pirates are. Or the Chiefs to where the Royals are. Etc.

In the long run, that's terrible for the game.

J

The Milwaukee Brewers made $24 million last year, the fourth most profitable team in baseball. Bud Selig has been a whiz at crying poor mouth while lining his pockets with revenue sharing money and public subsidies for his team's new stadium. Per Forbes

 

[Joe Bryant]

From what I gather, there's 9-10 owners in the "small market, we need more revenue sharing" camp (Green Bay for example) and also 9-10 in the "super rich marketing genius" camps (Dallas, Wash, NYG, etc.)

Long time FFT'er here...been lurking since before that site went down. I felt the need to register after hearing Green Bay propped up as small-market whiner #1, one too many times. Green Bay is actually in the top ten of revenues. Yes, they do want revenue sharing to be protected and the cap to remain in place, but they are not the ones at the front of that charge. It's being led by the owners in Buffalo and Jacksonville. Green Bay doesn't even have an owner. The Packers are more of a passive player in this, hoping the NFL doesn't screw this up. It might be nitpicking, but I hate seeing Green Bay potentially ragged on by fans of teams in big markets as holding this thing up.I've witnessed it with the Brewers and cringe at any whiff of it aimed in the direction of the Pack.

Hi Mr. A, That is exactly the point I think. It would be a shame if the Packers ever got the point where the Brewers are. Or the Steelers to where the Pirates are. Or the Chiefs to where the Royals are. Etc.

In the long run, that's terrible for the game.

J

The Milwaukee Brewers made $24 million last year, the fourth most profitable team in baseball. Bud Selig has been a whiz at crying poor mouth while lining his pockets with revenue sharing money and public subsidies for his team's new stadium. Per Forbes

Hi Pet,I don't mean money. I mean having no chance to win. The fact that some teams can rock along and be profitable with no shot at winning (which encourages the owners to continue that path) is exactly what I think people fear.

One angle that doesn't get talked up as much is the underspending owners. It's fun to think about what kind of team Snyder might buy. But I wonder how cheap some of the other owners would go? I wouldn't be surprised if some of these guys went below the current salary cap if nobody made them spend. Some players would cash in but some might suffer.

J

 

[pettifogger]

From what I gather, there's 9-10 owners in the "small market, we need more revenue sharing" camp (Green Bay for example) and also 9-10 in the "super rich marketing genius" camps (Dallas, Wash, NYG, etc.)

Long time FFT'er here...been lurking since before that site went down. I felt the need to register after hearing Green Bay propped up as small-market whiner #1, one too many times. Green Bay is actually in the top ten of revenues. Yes, they do want revenue sharing to be protected and the cap to remain in place, but they are not the ones at the front of that charge. It's being led by the owners in Buffalo and Jacksonville. Green Bay doesn't even have an owner. The Packers are more of a passive player in this, hoping the NFL doesn't screw this up. It might be nitpicking, but I hate seeing Green Bay potentially ragged on by fans of teams in big markets as holding this thing up.I've witnessed it with the Brewers and cringe at any whiff of it aimed in the direction of the Pack.

Hi Mr. A, That is exactly the point I think. It would be a shame if the Packers ever got the point where the Brewers are. Or the Steelers to where the Pirates are. Or the Chiefs to where the Royals are. Etc.

In the long run, that's terrible for the game.

J

The Milwaukee Brewers made $24 million last year, the fourth most profitable team in baseball. Bud Selig has been a whiz at crying poor mouth while lining his pockets with revenue sharing money and public subsidies for his team's new stadium. Per Forbes

Hi Pet,I don't mean money. I mean having no chance to win. The fact that some teams can rock along and be profitable with no shot at winning (which encourages the owners to continue that path) is exactly what I think people fear.

One angle that doesn't get talked up as much is the underspending owners. It's fun to think about what kind of team Snyder might buy. But I wonder how cheap some of the other owners would go? I wouldn't be surprised if some of these guys went below the current salary cap if nobody made them spend. Some players would cash in but some might suffer.

J

This is a good reason for building in some incentive for teams to spend their money and not simply collect revenue sharing funds. But, baseball attendance locally varies much more than football attendance and media revenue comes much more from local TV and radio in baseball than football.

 

[SoloMatisse]

Im not sure its entirely a matter of teams not WANTING to spend $ on players as much as it is players just not wanting to join certain teams. For example, can you blame Arizona for not throwing their money away on grade B talent? All of the best FAs year in and year out overlook teams like this to play for contenders. Its a vicious cycle. I dont blame the players. Two years ago when TO was looking to move on from San Fran and find a new place to earn a living and contend for a title, do you think he said, "Gee, I wonder if Cincy, Arizona or Cleveland could use a guy like me?" No. He said to his agent, get me to Philly already and give me a shot at a ring. There are alot of teams that just dont draw bigtime FAs, and several of them experience this consistently. There is a fine line here between owners not wanting to spend the $ and players not giving them a chance to.