*** No CBA = End Of NFL As We Know It *** (1 Viewer)

[JaxBill]

I don't think people are paying nearly as much attention to the CBA talks as they should. There are huge problems ahead for teams if there is no CBA.

If no CBA is signed by March 3rd-

- Teams still have to get under cap

- They can only "push out" salaries to 2009, last year of current CBA

- For the same reason, signing first-round picks would become very difficult since signing bonus could only be amortized until 2009.

- no June 1st rule since there is no cap in '07 (i.e. salary cap hit can not be split over 2 seasons).

- Teams can not trade until they first get under cap.

There are many longer term issues as well:

- For the first time, league owners seems very much divided about what secondary funds will be included in revenue sharing. It seems no CBA will be signed until the owners work out their own differences.

- Once salary cap lifted in '08, would players ever go back to it? (i.e. Upshaw's remarks about letting the Genie out of the bottle).

- Currently, last college draft covered under CBA is 2009.

- Would the NFL turn into baseball with the big-market teams greatly outspending the small-money team?

The negotiations the next few weeks are huge.

One of the many articles out there:

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/story/388159p-329349c.html

 

[Fumbleweed]

I don't think people are paying nearly as much attention to the CBA talks as they should. There are huge problems ahead for teams if there is no CBA.

If no CBA is signed by March 3rd-

- Teams still have to get under cap

- They can only "push out" salaries to 2009, last year of current CBA

- For the same reason, signing first-round picks would become very difficult since signing bonus could only be amortized until 2009.

- no June 1st rule since there is no cap in '07 (i.e. salary cap hit can not be split over 2 seasons).

- Teams can not trade until they first get under cap.

There are many longer term issues as well:

- For the first time, league owners seems very much divided about what secondary funds will be included in revenue sharing. It seems no CBA will be signed until the owners work out their own differences.

- Once salary cap lifted in '08, would players ever go back to it? (i.e. Upshaw's remarks about letting the Genie out of the bottle).

- Currently, last college draft covered under CBA is 2009.

- Would the NFL turn into baseball with the big-market teams greatly outspending the small-money team?

The negotiations the next few weeks are huge.

One of the many articles out there:

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/story/388159p-329349c.html

Believe me, I'm paying attention. I think the next 3 weeks are VERY critical.

 

[JaxBill]

About the only "positive" if they went to an uncapped year in '07 is that an NFL player could not become a free agent for at least 6 years (up form the current 4 years).

 

[Evilgrin 72]

I believe they'll get it done. This is the NFL - I have faith. it may prove to be misguided, but I firmly believe it will prove to be a non-issue.

If they don't, however, you're right, it makes a HUGE impact.....

 

[JaxBill]

I believe they'll get it done. This is the NFL - I have faith. it may prove to be misguided, but I firmly believe it will prove to be a non-issue.

If they don't, however, you're right, it makes a HUGE impact.....

I think they'll get it done but not by March 3rd, which would leave some teams scurrying to get under the cap. Then the free agent period would become very interesting with the whole CBA uncertainty.I don't like the fact that the owners don't meet again until the NFL meeting in late March.

 

[2112]

If no CBA is signed by March 3rd-

- Teams still have to get under cap

- They can only "push out" salaries to 2009, last year of current CBA

- For the same reason, signing first-round picks would become very difficult since signing bonus could only be amortized until 2009.

- no June 1st rule since there is no cap in '07 (i.e. salary cap hit can not be split over 2 seasons).

- Teams can not trade until they first get under cap.

this will become big FF news for those drafting rookies; greater chance of them holding out, imo. The sheer lack of press on this issue really points out the "national enquirer" mentality of the media - now even the sports media. If the issue can't be conveyed in 10 words or less; or with the use of pictures; then we won't cover it too much.

 

[BlueOnion]

I don't think people are paying nearly as much attention to the CBA talks as they should. There are huge problems ahead for teams if there is no CBA.

You are mistaken, this about the 3rd or 4th thread in a week on the topic.

- For the first time, league owners seems very much divided about what secondary funds will be included in revenue sharing. It seems no CBA will be signed until the owners work out their own differences.

This is the root of the problem and is quite complex. Most revenues are shared, but the problem is the unshared revenue. For instance, luxury boxes are unshared revenues. So you get guys like Jack Kent Cooke (now Daniel Snyder who paid 750+ million for the club) who spent his own money on a stadium with luxurious luxury boxes and he (now Snyder) gets all these revenues. The hold up here is, this revenue has gotten to be quite a sum off money and the player's union wants a cut of it. But first, owners have decided how to share the revenue.

So we have team owners (and sometimes owners and individual States\Cities) in Washington (big market) who have spent their own money on stadiums\luxury suites and are collecting all these revenues from 'fans' ( most likely big businesses like FedEx, IBM et al).

So now there are small market teams like Green Bay, Pittsburgh and Kansas City who spent zero money to help build these stadiums in other cities now holding their hands out and saying, "Give me some of that revenue."

This really could be a deal breaker.

 

[The Jerk]

I understand the potential ramifications. What am I supposed to do about it?

 

[Spike]

I don't think people are paying nearly as much attention to the CBA talks as they should.  There are huge problems ahead for teams if there is no CBA.

You are mistaken, this about the 3rd or 4th thread in a week on the topic.

- For the first time, league owners seems very much divided about what secondary funds will be included in revenue sharing.  It seems no CBA will be signed until the owners work out their own differences.

This is the root of the problem and is quite complex. Most revenues are shared, but the problem is the unshared revenue. For instance, luxury boxes are unshared revenues. So you get guys like Jack Kent Cooke (now Daniel Snyder who paid 750+ million for the club) who spent his own money on a stadium with luxurious luxury boxes and he (now Snyder) gets all these revenues. The hold up here is, this revenue has gotten to be quite a sum off money and the player's union wants a cut of it. But first, owners have decided how to share the revenue.

So we have team owners (and sometimes owners and individual States\Cities) in Washington (big market) who have spent their own money on stadiums\luxury suites and are collecting all these revenues from 'fans' ( most likely big businesses like FedEx, IBM et al).

So now there are small market teams like Green Bay, Pittsburgh and Kansas City who spent zero money to help build these stadiums in other cities now holding their hands out and saying, "Give me some of that revenue."

This really could be a deal breaker.

Also to be (possibly) figured in is situations like New England's where Bob Kraft built Gillette Stadium with his own money so the small market teams would have no "right" to hold out their hands and say "Give me some of that revenue."

 

[Kleck]

Hmmmm. No cap? Having the richest owner in Paul Allen makes me think that it wouldn't be so bad, but for the good of the league I think they need to keep the cap in place.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

I've heard that the real issue isn't with the Players union but with a few owners like jerry Jones and Snyder who dont want to share their revenue.

 

[Koya]

This is an owner-owner issue as I see it. The NFL players union is so comparitively week compared to other sports, that when the owners get their act together, they will be in the drivers seat and able to dictate terms to a large degree.

After all, how well did the players do during the last strike? The NFL has been smart enough to brand THE GAME, and not individuals. You identify with the helmet, the uni and the logo... if there is any pause in play due to a strike, fans will come right back when things settle down and my guess is the players will have to cave for that to happen.

 

[BlueOnion]

when the owners get their act together, they will be in the drivers seat and able to dictate terms to a large degree.

This is the crux of the problem, how do you resolve this issue? It is not so black and white as it has been in the past.

 

[Sweet Love]

Hmmmm. No cap? Having the richest owner in Paul Allen makes me think that it wouldn't be so bad, but for the good of the league I think they need to keep the cap in place.

Yeah and if given the chance, the NY Jets would just dress an arena team...

 

[Koya]

when the owners get their act together, they will be in the drivers seat and able to dictate terms to a large degree.

This is the crux of the problem, how do you resolve this issue? It is not so black and white as it has been in the past.

Which issue? the intra ownership issues? A shame the Mara type owner is a thing of the past. If greed overtakes this league (and the ahole in DC and Jerry Me Me Me Me Me Jones are two perfect examples of people who seem to care less about anyone else but their own welfare, especially Snyder) then the NFL as we know it WILL be gone.This will help the NY Giants I am sure - but I dont want to see it happen.

 

[BlueOnion]

Which issue? the intra ownership issues? A shame the Mara type owner is a thing of the past.  If greed overtakes this league (and the ahole in DC and Jerry Me Me Me Me Me Jones are two perfect examples of people who seem to care less about anyone else but their own welfare, especially Snyder) then the NFL as we know it WILL be gone.

This will help the NY Giants I am sure - but I dont want to see it happen.

I have a lot of respect for you, but your Wellington Mara reference leads me to believe you are not seeing the actual problem here.Wellington Mara was a big proponent of NFL owners sharing expenses and sharing revenue. The issue at hand has nothing to do with sharing expenses, but sharing revenue; which is going to be quite a hangup for owners such as Snyder, Jones, Kraft et al who incurred a lot of expenses (for stadiums) in which they paid for with their own money.

Mara would have been in favor of all 32 NFL teams sharing the expenses for building all 31 (Giants\Jets sharing) stadiums and then sharing the revenue of all 31 stadiums.

 

[JaxBill]

Here's a link to a story about the revenue-sharing plan Dan Rooney and Wayne Weaver put together last summer that was shot down at the league meetings.

http://www.jaguars.com/story/4408.asp

 

[B-Deep]

Which issue? the intra ownership issues? A shame the Mara type owner is a thing of the past. If greed overtakes this league (and the ahole in DC and Jerry Me Me Me Me Me Jones are two perfect examples of people who seem to care less about anyone else but their own welfare, especially Snyder) then the NFL as we know it WILL be gone.

This will help the NY Giants I am sure - but I dont want to see it happen.

I have a lot of respect for you, but your Wellington Mara reference leads me to believe you are not seeing the actual problem here.Wellington Mara was a big proponent of NFL owners sharing expenses and sharing revenue. The issue at hand has nothing to do with sharing expenses, but sharing revenue; which is going to be quite a hangup for owners such as Snyder, Jones, Kraft et al who incurred a lot of expenses (for stadiums) in which they paid for with their own money.

Mara would have been in favor of all 32 NFL teams sharing the expenses for building all 31 (Giants\Jets sharing) stadiums and then sharing the revenue of all 31 stadiums.

Was Mara a commie?

 

[BlueOnion]

Here's a link to a story about the revenue-sharing plan Dan Rooney and Wayne Weaver put together last summer that was shot down at the league meetings.

http://www.jaguars.com/story/4408.asp

I have to say that proposal is an insult to anybody who understands the issues at hand; the proposal basically says, "Lets not share the expense, but lets share the revenue." Disclaimer - It might be more accurate to say it is a poor article than a poor proposal.

 

[BlueOnion]

Was Mara a commie?

I don't know who your favorite NFL team is, but if it is not the Giants you better be grateful for who Wellington Mara was and what he choose to believe in.As a Viking fan, I give more credit to Mara then I do to Rozelle for the current business model of the NFL.

 

[BlueOnion]

Here's a link to a story about the revenue-sharing plan Dan Rooney and Wayne Weaver put together last summer that was shot down at the league meetings.

http://www.jaguars.com/story/4408.asp

This article makes Wayne Weaver and Dan Rooney look far more greedier and selfish than Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder.

 

[JaxBill]

Here's a link to a story about the revenue-sharing plan Dan Rooney and Wayne Weaver put together last summer that was shot down at the league meetings.

http://www.jaguars.com/story/4408.asp

I have to say that proposal is an insult to anybody who understands the issues at hand; the proposal basically says, "Lets not share the expense, but lets share the revenue." Disclaimer - It might be more accurate to say it is a poor article than a poor proposal.

Large-market teams such as Washington, Dallas and Houston, of course, are obvious opponents to such a strategy. Those three teams would say that if you're going to share my revenue, you should also have to share my debt. Purchase prices, franchise fees and new stadiums are driving those teams' debts and they argue that they need their local revenues to address those debts.

The NFL has long operated with a “pool the revenue” concept, though some revenues were designated “unshared.” The league modified that concept in 2002, and now more dramatic changes may be required if small-market and large-market teams are to continue to compete on a level playing field.

 

[JaxBill]

Here's another article about that plan and the issues involved:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05241/561998.stm

 

[Kleck.]

I don't think people are paying nearly as much attention to the CBA talks as they should.  There are huge problems ahead for teams if there is no CBA.

You are mistaken, this about the 3rd or 4th thread in a week on the topic.

- For the first time, league owners seems very much divided about what secondary funds will be included in revenue sharing.  It seems no CBA will be signed until the owners work out their own differences.

This is the root of the problem and is quite complex. Most revenues are shared, but the problem is the unshared revenue. For instance, luxury boxes are unshared revenues. So you get guys like Jack Kent Cooke (now Daniel Snyder who paid 750+ million for the club) who spent his own money on a stadium with luxurious luxury boxes and he (now Snyder) gets all these revenues. The hold up here is, this revenue has gotten to be quite a sum off money and the player's union wants a cut of it. But first, owners have decided how to share the revenue.

So we have team owners (and sometimes owners and individual States\Cities) in Washington (big market) who have spent their own money on stadiums\luxury suites and are collecting all these revenues from 'fans' ( most likely big businesses like FedEx, IBM et al).

So now there are small market teams like Green Bay, Pittsburgh and Kansas City who spent zero money to help build these stadiums in other cities now holding their hands out and saying, "Give me some of that revenue."

This really could be a deal breaker.

Also to be (possibly) figured in is situations like New England's where Bob Kraft built Gillette Stadium with his own money so the small market teams would have no "right" to hold out their hands and say "Give me some of that revenue."

Green Bay recently spent $295 million on Lambeau Field renovations and I don't remeber the NFL helping pay any of that cost. It was largely funded by a .5% Brown County sales tax and some by stock sales and license fees from season ticket holders.

 

[Bri]

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...opic=224310&hl=

 

[TommyGilmore]

Isiah Thomas killed the CBA.

 

[BlueOnion]

In short, I see Weaver and Rooney asking the local tax payers to build them a stadium and when the stadium the city builds does not generate as much money as stadiums as those built by other teams, Weaver and Rooney are now asking for other owners to pull their dead weight?I am going to put this in simple terms so we can first agree on a starting point (not to be construed as a condescending 'simple terms').

Lets start with four owners; owner A, owner B, owner C and owner D. All four owners need to build new stadiums and these new stadiums will have a cost and revenue associated with each one. As a small case study, lets look at 4 applicable scenarios and only look at the costs.

Owner A (Rooney) approaches his local politicians about a new stadium and the politicians get approval to use local taxes to build Owner A a new stadium. So Owner A now has no expense associated with building his stadium. If you want to look at this through a different paradigm, one could view the new taxes allocated to build the new stadium for owner A as an unshared ‘revenue stream’, but I digress.

Owner B (Weaver) doesn’t actually buy a stadium but inherits one as part of the bidding processes put forth by the city of Jacksonville. Again, Owner B escapes having any expenses associated with his own stadium.

Owner C (Kraft) wants a new stadium and does not have the same revenue streams available to him as Owner A and Owner B had; in short the local tax payers. These tax payers have asked the local owner to pay for the whole stadium themselves. Fair enough, so Owner C inherits a lot of debt to build his own stadium but also anticipates a certain amount of revenue to be generated by his investment to offset his out-of-pocket expenses.

Owner D (Snyder) purchases a franchise which has already secured many local revenue streams outside of the CBA agreement. These local revenue streams greatly influenced the sale of the franchise to owner D and forfeiting these revenue streams would only decrease the value of his investment. This example is best exemplified by somebody buying a Dairy Queen for $500,000 and then helping the local city destroy the major road connected the Dairy Queen to the local highway; after which the value (by influence of location) of the Dairy Queen could drop significantly; say to $300,000.

 

[Koya]

Which issue? the intra ownership issues? A shame the Mara type owner is a thing of the past.  If greed overtakes this league (and the ahole in DC and Jerry Me Me Me Me Me Jones are two perfect examples of people who seem to care less about anyone else but their own welfare, especially Snyder) then the NFL as we know it WILL be gone.

This will help the NY Giants I am sure - but I dont want to see it happen.

I have a lot of respect for you, but your Wellington Mara reference leads me to believe you are not seeing the actual problem here.Wellington Mara was a big proponent of NFL owners sharing expenses and sharing revenue. The issue at hand has nothing to do with sharing expenses, but sharing revenue; which is going to be quite a hangup for owners such as Snyder, Jones, Kraft et al who incurred a lot of expenses (for stadiums) in which they paid for with their own money.

Mara would have been in favor of all 32 NFL teams sharing the expenses for building all 31 (Giants\Jets sharing) stadiums and then sharing the revenue of all 31 stadiums.

You are correct in that I do not know the current specifics inside and out. I may have been mistaken in thinking this was about the concept of sharing revenues and the want of some owners to keep more than others as opposed to a more equal distribution.

 

[BlueOnion]

You are correct in that I do not know the current specifics inside and out.  I may have been mistaken in thinking this was about the concept of sharing revenues and the want of some owners to keep more than others as opposed to a more equal distribution.

It is all so relative. The city of Pittsburgh built the Steelers Stadium (Heinz Field) and the city of Jacksonville gave Weaver a stadium. Why aren't we asking these owners to share these revenues?

 

[JaxBill]

In short, I see Weaver and Rooney asking the local tax payers to build them a stadium and when the stadium the city builds does not generate as much money as stadiums as those built by other teams, Weaver and Rooney are now asking for other owners to pull their dead weight?I am going to put this in simple terms so we can first agree on a starting point (not to be construed as a condescending 'simple terms').

Lets start with four owners; owner A, owner B, owner C and owner D. All four owners need to build new stadiums and these new stadiums will have a cost and revenue associated with each one. As a small case study, lets look at 4 applicable scenarios and only look at the costs.

Owner A (Rooney) approaches his local politicians about a new stadium and the politicians get approval to use local taxes to build Owner A a new stadium. So Owner A now has no expense associated with building his stadium. If you want to look at this through a different paradigm, one could view the new taxes allocated to build the new stadium for owner A as an unshared ‘revenue stream’, but I digress.

Owner B (Weaver) doesn’t actually buy a stadium but inherits one as part of the bidding processes put forth by the city of Jacksonville. Again, Owner B escapes having any expenses associated with his own stadium.

Owner C (Kraft) wants a new stadium and does not have the same revenue streams available to him as Owner A and Owner B had; in short the local tax payers. These tax payers have asked the local owner to pay for the whole stadium themselves. Fair enough, so Owner C inherits a lot of debt to build his own stadium but also anticipates a certain amount of revenue to be generated by his investment to offset his out-of-pocket expenses.

Owner D (Snyder) purchases a franchise which has already secured many local revenue streams outside of the CBA agreement. These local revenue streams greatly influenced the sale of the franchise to owner D and forfeiting these revenue streams would only decrease the value of his investment. This example is best exemplified by somebody buying a Dairy Queen for $500,000 and then helping the local city destroy the major road connected the Dairy Queen to the local highway; after which the value (by influence of location) of the Dairy Queen could drop significantly; say to $300,000.

I understand that there are different franchises have different debts to pay. The wasn't because I didn't understand the concepts. I used it because you ripped the article which I thought covered, albeit briefly, the points you made.I agree wholeheartedly with the points that different owners have different financial responsibilities, viewpoints and expectations.

The second article, from the Post, brings up a couple of interesting points

- That some owners want to count stadium-debt in any equation but not franchise-acquisition debt.

- That the local revenue counts toward the cap figure calculation, so if your local revenue is growing below average, you're not keeping up with the (Jerry) Joneses.

 

[BlueOnion]

I understand that there are different franchises have different debts to pay. The wasn't because I didn't understand the concepts. I used it because you ripped the article which I thought covered, albeit briefly, the points you made.

What I didn't like is the article had about 10 pages on why revenue should be shared and a single brief paragraph stating that 'not all expenses are shared.'I agree wholeheartedly with the points that different owners have different financial responsibilities, viewpoints and expectations.

The second article, from the Post, brings up a couple of interesting points

- That some owners want to count stadium-debt in any equation but not franchise-acquisition debt.

- That the local revenue counts toward the cap figure calculation, so if your local revenue is growing below average, you're not keeping up with the (Jerry) Joneses.

There was more meat to the second article. Your second point (or the articles) is a legit concern and the point of contention. Currently, not all local revenue counts towards the 'the big pot figure' but the NFLPA thinks more of it should be included in 'the big pot figure'.

 

[diesel7982]

I don't think people are paying nearly as much attention to the CBA talks as they should. There are huge problems ahead for teams if there is no CBA.

If no CBA is signed by March 3rd-

- Teams still have to get under cap

- They can only "push out" salaries to 2009, last year of current CBA

- For the same reason, signing first-round picks would become very difficult since signing bonus could only be amortized until 2009.

- no June 1st rule since there is no cap in '07 (i.e. salary cap hit can not be split over 2 seasons).

- Teams can not trade until they first get under cap.

There are many longer term issues as well:

- For the first time, league owners seems very much divided about what secondary funds will be included in revenue sharing. It seems no CBA will be signed until the owners work out their own differences.

- Once salary cap lifted in '08, would players ever go back to it? (i.e. Upshaw's remarks about letting the Genie out of the bottle).

- Currently, last college draft covered under CBA is 2009.

- Would the NFL turn into baseball with the big-market teams greatly outspending the small-money team?

The negotiations the next few weeks are huge.

One of the many articles out there:

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/story/388159p-329349c.html

I started posting stuff about this a year ago...no one cared.

 

[Man in the yellow hat]

By the way, Green Bay seems to be a "one-off" here. If they are asking for any revenue sharing (are they?), it's not like that money is lining anyone's pockets since they don't have an owner. That stadium was rebuilt with some of my hard earned coin. No complaints, it needed to happen to keep Green Bay alive and well.

All revenue they take in stays in a general Packer fund, not is some guy's bank account.

 

[BlueOnion]

All revenue they take in stays in a general Packer fund, not is some guy's bank account.

Exactly, people are saying this should not be done and instead should be shared among all the NFL owners.

 

[Man in the yellow hat]

All revenue they take in stays in a general Packer fund, not is some guy's bank account.

Exactly, people are saying this should not be done and instead should be shared among all the NFL owners.

The difference right now, as I see it, is that an owner can choose to just pocket the cash when it comes to other teams. That's not the case in Green Bay, as they don't have an owner. All money goes directly back to the team. So I don't think any of this really applies to them. Just my two cents.

 

[dj_stouty]

Forcing owners to share additional revenue sends a bad message to the league. Basically; "Do well for yourself and we will send the revenue from YOUR hard work to the other teams" and "don't worry about trying as hard as the other owners, because in the end, Washington, New England and DAllas will fund your team".

BS

 

[Godsbrother]

Owner A (Rooney) approaches his local politicians about a new stadium and the politicians get approval to use local taxes to build Owner A a new stadium. So Owner A now has no expense associated with building his stadium.

Heinz Field cost $281 million to build, with the Steelers contributing $123 million. The rest came from the state and a bond issue backed by Allegheny Regional Asset District (RAD) sales tax revenues. The stadium is owned by the City of Pittsburgh.

 

[cstu]

The people involve need to realize that there's a big difference between sharing things like TV and merchandise money that come from the general popularity of the game and the investments made on things like a stadium by individual teams and cities.

The end result of sharing stadium revenues is that it will become much more difficult to get new stadiums built.

 

[Bri]

thought this might be of interest, from USAToday

WLB LaVar Arrington's complicated, reworked contract has a cap value of $12,046,000 for 2006. If the collective bargaining agreement isn't extended during the next six weeks, all of Arrington's remaining signing and option bonuses, $12,166,000, would count against the 2006 cap. So it would cost the Redskins almost as much to cut their lightning rod as it would to keep him.

However, if the CBA is extended and keeps the longstanding June 1 rule in effect, cutting Arrington after that date and before July 15 - when he's due a $6.5 million roster bonus - would cost the Redskins $5,001,000 this year with the remaining $7,105,000 counting in 2006.

Even if Arrington is cut and counts just $5 million this year, the Redskins would be roughly $15 million over the expected $95 million cap.

 

[BGP]

I don't think people are paying nearly as much attention to the CBA talks as they should. There are huge problems ahead for teams if there is no CBA.

You are mistaken, this about the 3rd or 4th thread in a week on the topic.

- For the first time, league owners seems very much divided about what secondary funds will be included in revenue sharing. It seems no CBA will be signed until the owners work out their own differences.

This is the root of the problem and is quite complex. Most revenues are shared, but the problem is the unshared revenue. For instance, luxury boxes are unshared revenues. So you get guys like Jack Kent Cooke (now Daniel Snyder who paid 750+ million for the club) who spent his own money on a stadium with luxurious luxury boxes and he (now Snyder) gets all these revenues. The hold up here is, this revenue has gotten to be quite a sum off money and the player's union wants a cut of it. But first, owners have decided how to share the revenue.

So we have team owners (and sometimes owners and individual States\Cities) in Washington (big market) who have spent their own money on stadiums\luxury suites and are collecting all these revenues from 'fans' ( most likely big businesses like FedEx, IBM et al).

So now there are small market teams like Green Bay, Pittsburgh and Kansas City who spent zero money to help build these stadiums in other cities now holding their hands out and saying, "Give me some of that revenue."

This really could be a deal breaker.

Also to be (possibly) figured in is situations like New England's where Bob Kraft built Gillette Stadium with his own money so the small market teams would have no "right" to hold out their hands and say "Give me some of that revenue."

You built your own stadium, that's great, but the employees of the Packers, Steelers, and Chiefs work in your stadium too. I've always felt that if one owner refused to share the revenue, then the rest of them should just kick that club out of the league. Let him have his own revenue but he's not playing anyone there.MLB could do the exact same thing to the Yankees. Kick the Yankees out of the league - let Steinbrenner enjoy his revenue then.

 

[BlueOnion]

By the way, Green Bay seems to be a "one-off" here. If they are asking for any revenue sharing (are they?), it's not like that money is lining anyone's pockets since they don't have an owner. That stadium was rebuilt with some of my hard earned coin. No complaints, it needed to happen to keep Green Bay alive and well.

All revenue they take in stays in a general Packer fund, not is some guy's bank account.

But this is the exact problem here. All that money in the general Packer Fund is just sitting there and not making additional revenue for the league\team. Other teams, such as Washington and Dallas did not stick their money in a general fund. These others teams (owners) took the money and reinvested it in the team\stadium and are now generating even more revenue; which others want a cut off.Asking others owners to share their additional revenue would be equavalent of Jerry Jones asking to have access to the general Packers Fund because he believes he can generate more revenue with that money than the current contingent is.

 

[BlueOnion]

Owner A (Rooney) approaches his local politicians about a new stadium and the politicians get approval to use local taxes to build Owner A a new stadium. So Owner A now has no expense associated with building his stadium.

Heinz Field cost $281 million to build, with the Steelers contributing $123 million. The rest came from the state and a bond issue backed by Allegheny Regional Asset District (RAD) sales tax revenues. The stadium is owned by the City of Pittsburgh.

So if we can ask Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder to share their revenue generated by the stadium, how come we cannot ask the citizens of Pittsburgh (tax payers who own the stadium) to make a larger contribution to the general NFL fund?It sounds like to me the city of Pittsburgh try to build the best stadium possible without any consideration to generating as much revenue as possible. And for their short sightedness, we are going to ask the Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder's to pull the dead weight of the citizens of Pittsburgh?

I am being a little 'mouthy' here, but I am just playing devil's adovocate.

 

[BlueOnion]

You built your own stadium, that's great, but the employees of the Packers, Steelers, and Chiefs work in your stadium too.  I've always felt that if one owner refused to share the revenue, then the rest of them should just kick that club out of the league.    Let him have his own revenue but he's not playing anyone there.

I have to say, I do side with your opinion but it is awfully close-minded. As mentioned about, the Steelers received 280 million to build a stadium from the city of Pittsburgh, yet the Steelers did not share one dime of this revenue stream. On the other hand, Daniel Snyder paid for his own stadium. So we have two primary stadium owners; Daniel Snyder and the city of Pittsburgh and we are only going to ask Daniel Snyder to share stadium revenue?

MLB could do the exact same thing to the Yankees. Kick the Yankees out of the league - let Steinbrenner enjoy his revenue then.

Edited - BGP - You and I are active in the FFA so you should know I follow\comment on the economics of MLB more so than the actual play on the field. I can continue this conversation in the FFA and the two leagues are very similar in regards to stadium revenue, CBA and revenue sharing.

 

[BGP]

You built your own stadium, that's great, but the employees of the Packers, Steelers, and Chiefs work in your stadium too. I've always felt that if one owner refused to share the revenue, then the rest of them should just kick that club out of the league. Let him have his own revenue but he's not playing anyone there.

I have to say, I do side with your opinion but it is awfully close-minded. As mentioned about, the Steelers received 280 million to build a stadium from the city of Pittsburgh, yet the Steelers did not share one dime of this revenue stream. On the other hand, Daniel Snyder paid for his own stadium. So we have two primary stadium owners; Daniel Snyder and the city of Pittsburgh and we are only going to ask Daniel Snyder to share stadium revenue?

No I would have all of them share revenue as soon as it is feasible to do so.

MLB could do the exact same thing to the Yankees. Kick the Yankees out of the league - let Steinbrenner enjoy his revenue then.

Edited - BGP - You and I are active in the FFA so you should know I follow\comment on the economics of MLB more so than the actual play on the field. I can continue this conversation in the FFA and the two leagues are very similar in regards to stadium revenue, CBA and revenue sharing.

ok

 

[JackTorrance]

The NFL is going to be looking at the 'haves' and 'have nots' in the next CBA but don't expect a MAJOR overhaul of the league. They don't want to mess with a good thing.

Don't be fooled. ALL of these owners are making Millions of dollars right now. They have a good formula in place. Is it perfect ? No, but what is ?

 

[BlueOnion]

No I would have all of them share revenue as soon as it is feasible to do so.

ok

As would I, but they also have to share all the expenses as well; I don't think you can have one without the other.

 

[BigRed]

GB end of the NFL as we know it. bring it on and bring on the scrubs

 

[Godsbrother]

You built your own stadium, that's great, but the employees of the Packers, Steelers, and Chiefs work in your stadium too.  I've always felt that if one owner refused to share the revenue, then the rest of them should just kick that club out of the league.    Let him have his own revenue but he's not playing anyone there.

I have to say, I do side with your opinion but it is awfully close-minded. As mentioned about, the Steelers received 280 million to build a stadium from the city of Pittsburgh, yet the Steelers did not share one dime of this revenue stream. On the other hand, Daniel Snyder paid for his own stadium. So we have two primary stadium owners; Daniel Snyder and the city of Pittsburgh and we are only going to ask Daniel Snyder to share stadium revenue?

MLB could do the exact same thing to the Yankees.  Kick the Yankees out of the league - let Steinbrenner enjoy his revenue then.

Edited - BGP - You and I are active in the FFA so you should know I follow\comment on the economics of MLB more so than the actual play on the field. I can continue this conversation in the FFA and the two leagues are very similar in regards to stadium revenue, CBA and revenue sharing.

Not to nitpick but the Steelers received $158 million from taxes, not $280 million. And I am not so sure you can even say the Steelers received it because the stadium is owned by the city. And even if the Steelers did own teh stadium I don't see why they should have to share that revenue with the other teams in the NFL since it was not generated by the NFL. The Pittsburgh/Jacksonville plan only wants to share revenues generated by NFL games, which I think is reasonable considering no team can generate money for games without playing another NFL team.

If Snyder wants to generate additional revenue by hosting rock concerts, soccer games, Billy Graham crusades, etc. he does not have to share that with the NFL. And this is something the Snyder can do because he owns the stadium unlike the Rooneys because Heinz Field is owned by the city.

 

[BlueOnion]

The NFL is going to be looking at the 'haves' and 'have nots' in the next CBA but don't expect a MAJOR overhaul of the league. They don't want to mess with a good thing.

Don't be fooled. ALL of these owners are making Millions of dollars right now. They have a good formula in place. Is it perfect ? No, but what is ?

You are focusing on the owners making millions but you are not acknowledging that the strength of the NFL is that all the books are open, the revenue is pooled and the players are guaranteed a 68% cut of that revenue; it is the players who want an additional cut of the [growing] revenue which is not shared; this is the root of the problem.On the surface, the problem is owners first have to decide how they are going to share this revenue; logically it would seem all revenues from all teams should be pooled together, the players should be given their cut and then sharing the remaining revenue among the owners should be a percentage relative to how much each owner put in. This makes the most sense on the surface. The underlying problem is the collective pool of revenue (prior to giving the players their cut) because this is the number that dictates the salary cap. So if this number is inflated greatly (by local revenue streams), it pushes the salary cap up significantly. And if the shared revenue is a percentage based on revenue contribution, some of the smaller teams would be operating in a CAP environment in which they are struggling to make the minimum.

So the point of contention of this CBA (from an owner's perspective) is:

1) Who owns these local revenue streams? Daniel Snyder and Robert Kraft own theirs, but in some others cities (like Pittsburgh) some of the revenue stream goes to the tax payers.

2) Who is responsible for managing these local revenue streams? Daniel Snyder and Jerry Jones are exceptional at managing these local revenue streams and because they have been so successful they have created a discrepancy between 'haves' and 'have nots'. And are the citizens (tax payers) of Pittsburgh genuinely interested in maximizing these revenue streams as Jerry Jones and Robert Kraft, or are they more interested in minimizing cost for the consumer?

Some other interesting questions to be asked:

1) The naming rights for Lambeau Field could be a huge local revenue stream. However, this revenue stream is not being tapped, so the question is who should pick up the slack, the citizens of Washington DC and Dallas?

2) Who decides the price for luxury boxes in Minnesota? This is another revenue stream that should be tapped for the NFL (if this revenue is to be shared). Because the State owns the stadium and luxury boxes but does not benefit from their revenue, what incentive does the State have to maximize this revenue stream which they would get no cut off? And because this revenue stream is not being tapped, who should pick up the slack, Robert Kraft and the consumers of New England?

 

[BlueOnion]

Not to nitpick but the Steelers received $158 million from taxes, not $280 million.  And I am not so sure you can even say the Steelers received it because the stadium is owned by the city.

Thanks for helping me out, as I don't know the details of the construction costs in Pittsburgh as well as who gets the revenue.But this leads us to some more pointed questions.

1) Should the Steelers have to share that $158 million that was given to them by the State?

2) Who is responsible for monitoring the city of Pittsburgh to ensure they are generating as much revenue as possible for NFL games? And if the city of Pittsburgh is not, who should have to pick up the slack?

3) Because the city of Pittsburgh owns the stadium, do they get any revenue from Steeler home games; rent or possibly lease money? If so, should the city of Pittsburgh be treated just like a Daniel Snyder and be asked to share that revenue?

And even if the Steelers did own the stadium I don't see why they should have to share that revenue with the other teams in the NFL since it was not generated by the NFL.  The Pittsburgh/Jacksonville plan only wants to share revenues generated by NFL games, which I think is reasonable considering no team can generate money for games without playing another NFL team.

I see where you are coming from, but the other side of the debate is, "why does a home game in Washington generate X amount of revenue and why does a home game in Pittsburgh only generate Y amount of revenue? And who should have to pick up the difference?

If Snyder wants to generate additional revenue by hosting rock concerts,  soccer games, Billy Graham crusades, etc. he does not have to share that with the NFL.  And this is something the Snyder can do because he owns the stadium unlike the Rooneys because Heinz Field is owned by the city.

But you are missing the point, you cannot buy a luxury box at FedEx field just for the Redskin home games. When you buy a luxury box at FedEx field, you get the luxury box for every event held at FedEx field for the year.Edited - This may not be the case in Pittsburgh and the question should be "Why is this revenue stream not being maximized and who should be asked to pick up the slack?"