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

[JaxBill]

The other wrinkle is that several teams (Eagles, Pats, Seahawks, Packers, Colts among others) have received loans from the league to help them build new stadiums or renovate existing stadiums.

So, in their cases, the league helped them build luxury boxes whose revenue they don't want pooled.

 

[JackTorrance]

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?

Good analysis and here are a few responses:1) Each owner had the ability to set up their own 'deal' to either control or not control their local revenue streams. If they want to 'change' the deal they set up initially with the fans/city/county--(whoever), that will have to be handled on a case by case basis and if one owner feels they're not getting what they deserve.............we ALL know what's going to happen..........

just ask our Cleveland, Baltimore, Los Angeles, and Houston brothers about what happens..............

it's a free market and everyone knows the consequences

2) As far as naming rights, luxury box prices, etc..................all of those individual items should be handled by each individual team/organization. Each team knows what their market will bear when it comes to ticket prices, concessions, etc. A luxury box in New York is going to garner a much larger price than one in Minneapolis. It's just the way things are.

3) The ONE thing that CANNOT be controlled by the local team/organization is the amount of revenue they are getting from local TV and radio rights. This could be one area that we could look at possible 'sharing'. A large market like Chicago or Dallas or Houston is going to automatically generate more electronic media revenue than say, Jacksonville or Kansas City.

This is inherintly unfair, but it is my belief that the NFL would probably approve someone moving to Los Angeles without any questions asked right now so if an owner thought the grass was greener, they do have options.

 

[BlueOnion]

The other wrinkle is that several teams (Eagles, Pats, Seahawks, Packers, Colts among others) have received loans from the league to help them build new stadiums or renovate existing stadiums.

So, in their cases, the league helped them build luxury boxes whose revenue they don't want pooled.

This is also true and I don't understand the ramification details as of yet (though I am often looking).But at a high-level overview, deals have been made and contracts have been signed in regards to these local revenue streams and now the NFLPA is saying, "hey where is our cut?" And they have a legit point. What makes this so complicated is the CBA is largely dependent on creating the salary cap numbers at the time all revenue is pooled, not after the revenue is divided up.

 

[Godsbrother]

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?"

I admit that I don't know the intricacies and ramifications of all this entails. On the surface it seems to me like money from games should be shared, regardless of the capacity of the stadium since the host team needs the visiting team to play the game. I am sure that I am oversimplifying it though.

 

[BlueOnion]

I admit that I don't know the intricacies and ramifications of all this entails. On the surface it seems to me like money from games should be shared, regardless of the capacity of the stadium since the host team needs the visiting team to play the game. I am sure that I am oversimplifying it though.

I agree. I have been arguing the opinion of the Daniel Snyders, Jerry Jones and Robert Krafts because I understand their position, not that I believe they are right (or wrong).In a simple example, lets say you and two of your buddies hadve extra 100,000 and you each want to invest it. Buddy 'A' recommends you pool your money together and buy a nice piece of land for $300,000. Buddy 'B' doesn't feel good about the current market for land\property and decides he wants to put his money into a different market (maybe mutual funds or something). So each one of you decide to do your own thing with your 100,000.

Buddy 'A' buys a piece of property (doing almost no research) and after two years the State buys neighboring property and zones the land for a prison. :( His property value has still increased, but not nearly as much if he would have done some more research.

Buddy 'B' buys some mutual funds and the market takes a hit. He still feels good about his investment and things his family will be well off in 20 years, but in the short term his mutual funds have decreased.

You on the other hand, went out and did a lot of research. You learned that some other developers were going to develop some land on a lake and build multi-million dollar homes. You seize the opportunity and buy as much neighboring land as you possibly can. After the million dollar homes start to be build, the value of your land goes through the roof.

After 5-years, you are buying a retirement home and your wife is out spending lavishly on cloths, cars, waxes, peticures (sp??), manicures (sp??). Buddy 'A' and Buddy 'B' and approach you with the dilemma, "Listen, our wives cannot afford to do the things that your wife can and it is straining the relationship of our wifes, we should really share our revenue. What do you think?"

Clearly you would not mind sharing revenue, but you are a little baffled by how your buddies foolishly invested their 100,000 and almost insulted that they didn't want to share risk\research upfront but now want to share revenue.

 

[Kleck.]

The other wrinkle is that several teams (Eagles, Pats, Seahawks, Packers, Colts among others) have received loans from the league to help them build new stadiums or renovate existing stadiums.

So, in their cases, the league helped them build luxury boxes whose revenue they don't want pooled.

Of the $295 million to renovate Lambeau Field, only $13 million came from an NFL loan.That $13 million according to the G3 finance plan, was the largest Green Bay could receive because they are the smallest market and will be paid off in 15 years from the loan agreement date.

 

[BlueOnion]

The other wrinkle is that several teams (Eagles, Pats, Seahawks, Packers, Colts among others) have received loans from the league to help them build new stadiums or renovate existing stadiums.

So, in their cases, the league helped them build luxury boxes whose revenue they don't want pooled.

Of the $295 million to renovate Lambeau Field, only $13 million came from an NFL loan.

For only $295 million, I would really have to question if every potential revenue stream is currently being maximized.

 

[Marvelous]

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?"

I admit that I don't know the intricacies and ramifications of all this entails. On the surface it seems to me like money from games should be shared, regardless of the capacity of the stadium since the host team needs the visiting team to play the game. I am sure that I am oversimplifying it though.

I believe the visiting team does get a cut of the game day revenues (tickets, concessions, parking). But this is not the same as shared revenues. Shared revenues are shared among all of the teams. So the tv contracts, each team gets 1/32 of it (probably less some part for the NFL itself).

 

[Kleck.]

The other wrinkle is that several teams (Eagles, Pats, Seahawks, Packers, Colts among others) have received loans from the league to help them build new stadiums or renovate existing stadiums.

So, in their cases, the league helped them build luxury boxes whose revenue they don't want pooled.

Of the $295 million to renovate Lambeau Field, only $13 million came from an NFL loan.

For only $295 million, I would really have to question if every potential revenue stream is currently being maximized.

Good question. My knowledge of non-profit corporations is very limited but I don't believe they have to share all of their financial records and documents.Here is a report conducted by the WI State Legislative Audit Bureau on the Packers some might find interesting. Link

 

[Idiot Boxer]

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.

So what's wrong with allowing Owner C and D recoup their investment, but not more than their investment, and then share beyond that? Here's your compromise, but this isn't what C or D are set to agree to.

 

[BlueOnion]

So what's wrong with allowing Owner C and D recoup their investment, but not more than their investment, and then share beyond that? Here's your compromise, but this isn't what C or D are set to agree to.

So if you put $100,000 in a bank account expecting a certain return and after 5 or 10 years the bank said, "We are only going to return you the orginal $100,000, would you be pissed?These individuals are billionaires because they are smart with their money, retroactively changing the parameters of their investment is not going to sit well with them.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

So what's wrong with allowing Owner C and D recoup their investment, but not more than their investment, and then share beyond that?  Here's your compromise, but this isn't what C or D are set to agree to.

So if you put $100,000 in a bank account expecting a certain return and after 5 or 10 years the bank said, "We are only going to return you the orginal $100,000, would you be pissed?These individuals are billionaires because they are smart with their money, retroactively changing the parameters of their investment is not going to sit well with them.

That's not the point. The Steelers aren't getting anything on the "tax money" that you are calling revenue either.Sunk cost. The return is in the value of an NFL franchise in a successful league (not one absent revenue sharing and a salary cap)

 

[BlueOnion]

That's not the point. The Steelers aren't getting anything on the "tax money" that you are calling revenue either.

Sunk cost. The return is in the value of an NFL franchise in a successful league (not one absent revenue sharing and a salary cap)

You are bouncing around here between different topics, what do you want to discuss? Do you want to discuss how Snyder should spend his money or do you want to talk about the revenue (or lack their of) being generated by the Steelers and who should pick up the difference between the Steelers' home game revenue and the Redskins home game revenue?

 

[Idiot Boxer]

That's not the point.  The Steelers aren't getting anything on the "tax money" that you are calling revenue either.

Sunk cost.  The return is in the value of an NFL franchise in a successful league (not one absent revenue sharing and a salary cap)

You are bouncing around here between different topics, what do you want to discuss? Do you want to discuss how Snyder should spend his money or do you want to talk about the revenue (or lack their of) being generated by the Steelers and who should pick up the difference between the Steelers' home game revenue and the Redskins home game revenue?

You are still thinking about this too much in the perspective of this being 32 different teams. This is one NFL league with 32 shares. Each NFL owner reaps the benefit of his investment by the increase in the value of their share. As part of this league, Snyder enjoys certain benefits. No other team is allowed to locate in DC. Because Snyder owns a franchise in DC instead of Pittsburgh, he has the ability to generate more game revenue for that reason alone. Should Pittsburgh be penalized for having fewer corporate HQs, lower average disposable incomes and smaller populations? If so, then why shouldn't another owner be allowed to move into DC? Owners have ALLOWED him that market, the fact that he benefits from it should be a shared benefit. He reaps his individual benefit in the overall value of his franchise. Were he to sell it, I'm certain it would be valued well above the Minnesota or Jacksonville franchises.

 

[BlueOnion]

You are still thinking about this too much in the perspective of this being 32 different teams.  This is one NFL league with 32 shares.  Each NFL owner reaps the benefit of his investment by the increase in the value of their share.  As part of this league, Snyder enjoys certain benefits. 

You are speaking in a very general term and the bolded part is not true. When Snyder purchased the Redskins he also purchased the rights to all the local revenue streams associated with the Stadium, this is why the Redskins went for 750 million and the Vikings went for 250 million in relatively the same time frame.If what you are saying is true, why have some owners had to pay more than other owners for certain franchises? And if we are going to completely level the playing field to say all 32 shares are equal, who is going to buy out the local revenue streams from the Redskins from Snyder? You don't honestly expect Snyder to give this away for free do you?

No other team is allowed to locate in DC.

This is not true, see Al Davis moving to Los Angeles when the Rams were located in Los Angeles.

Because Snyder owns a franchise in DC instead of Pittsburgh, he has the ability to generate more game revenue for that reason alone.  Should Pittsburgh be penalized for having fewer corporate HQs, lower average disposable incomes and smaller populations?

What you are saying here is true. However, if the league is going to share all revenue, shouldn't the league share in the responsibility and expenses? What I mean is, if Washington generates $X.XX and Pittsburgh generates $Y.YY and Washington has to pay the difference between ($X.XX - $Y.YY), shouldn't Washington have more say over what happens in Pittsburgh then those in Pittsburgh because they are going to incure all cost associated with inefficiencies?

If so, then why shouldn't another owner be allowed to move into DC?  Owners have ALLOWED him that market, the fact that he benefits from it should be a shared benefit.  He reaps his individual benefit in the overall value of his franchise.  Were he to sell it, I'm certain it would be valued well above the Minnesota or Jacksonville franchises.

Sure Snyder has an advantage because he is in the Washington market, but nobody (including the NFL) gave him the Washington market for free. Snyder paid for it.

 

[fatkid]

The other wrinkle is that several teams (Eagles, Pats, Seahawks, Packers, Colts among others) have received loans from the league to help them build new stadiums or renovate existing stadiums.

So, in their cases, the league helped them build luxury boxes whose revenue they don't want pooled.

Of the $295 million to renovate Lambeau Field, only $13 million came from an NFL loan.

For only $295 million, I would really have to question if every potential revenue stream is currently being maximized.

I guarentee they are not maximizing every potential revenue stream. The waiting list for season tickets is currently 30 years long. This is a blatent indication that thie ticket prices are way too low. If you owned a buisness and had a limited amount of product to sell, wouldn't you try to get the most for it that you could? I think the solution is not to change the types of Revenue that are shared, but to increase the percentage of the shared revenue to make it up to the players. That way the salary cap is still a percentage of shared revenues, so all teams could afford to pay it. Also, the teams that did more to help thier bottom line get to keep more.

 

[BlueOnion]

I guarentee they are not maximizing every potential revenue stream. The waiting list for season tickets is currently 30 years long. This is a blatent indication that thie ticket prices are way too low. If you owned a buisness and had a limited amount of product to sell, wouldn't you try to get the most for it that you could?

This is a good point. If the Steeler fans would pay more for a tickets (which the demand seems to support), then less money has to come out of Snyder, Kraftt and Jones' pockets. Not saying this is right, but it is not an entirely crazy way to look at it.

I think the solution is not to change the types of Revenue that are shared, but to increase the percentage of the shared revenue to make it up to the players. That way the salary cap is still a percentage of shared revenues, so all teams could afford to pay it. Also, the teams that did more to help thier bottom line get to keep more.

This might actually be the best solution. I think the current player cut is about 68%, increasing this to 75% or 80% would probably resolve the immediate issue, but it will put a burden on smaller clubs.Edited - the downside of this would be it increases a team's operating expense (payroll) and does nothing for their revenue. Not sure how this would affect some of the smaller market teams like Green Bay, Pittsburgh and Kansas City.

 

[BlueOnion]

I guarentee they are not maximizing every potential revenue stream. The waiting list for season tickets is currently 30 years long. This is a blatent indication that thie ticket prices are way too low. If you owned a buisness and had a limited amount of product to sell, wouldn't you try to get the most for it that you could?

After further contemplation, I believe the standard season ticket is a shared revenue.Edited - However, I believe PSLs are not a shared revenue, so maybe the Steelers need to make PSLs part of their package so they can pull their wait instead of asking for a handout.

 

[Bri]

I guarentee they are not maximizing every potential revenue stream. The waiting list for season tickets is currently 30 years long. This is a blatent indication that thie ticket prices are way too low. If you owned a buisness and had a limited amount of product to sell, wouldn't you try to get the most for it that you could?

I think the solution is not to change the types of Revenue that are shared, but to increase the percentage of the shared revenue to make it up to the players. That way the salary cap is still a percentage of shared revenues, so all teams could afford to pay it. Also, the teams that did more to help thier bottom line get to keep more.

Kansas City is looking at a stadium deal and IIRC Lamar Hunt just pulled an all nighter to get this nailed down before a deadline. To increase the number of seats means a stadium renovation and costs could easily be anywhere from 100-500 mil. Now KC's adding a roof(if voted+approved) so the costs are drastically higher for that so maybe 500 mil is too high but it's a gigantic investment. I'm no architect but I know you don't just add tons of weight onto to a structure. For all we know most NFL stadiums' foundation hold as much weight as they can. Also BTW Chiefs org is not footing the bill completely, the citizens will be hit with a sales tax raise to generate a large % of the money.

My point is that it is not simple supply and demand because the team cannot(or cannot afford to) supply the added seats.

Giants stadium houses the Jets, the Giants, some college and HS games, some horse shows, some monster truck shows, and countless concerts trade shows and exhibitions. The waiting list for the G-men is arguably the longest in all sports. I'd venture a guess that no stadium can offer as much "promise" from a renovation as Giants stadium esp with the large number of citizens in the NY/NJ area and the fact that they house 2 NFL teams. If it's not getting done there we gotta ask why

 

[Godsbrother]

I guarentee they are not maximizing every potential revenue stream. The waiting list for season tickets is currently 30 years long. This is a blatent indication that thie ticket prices are way too low. If you owned a buisness and had a limited amount of product to sell, wouldn't you try to get the most for it that you could?

After further contemplation, I believe the standard season ticket is a shared revenue.Edited - However, I believe PSLs are not a shared revenue, so maybe the Steelers need to make PSLs part of their package so they can pull their wait instead of asking for a handout.

I already paid my PSLs and I aint paying another!

 

[BlueOnion]

I already paid my PSLs and I aint paying another!

I don't think anybody should have to pay these things.

 

[JaxBill]

NFL hopes to run delay on 'season'

BY GARY MYERS - February 14, 2006

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS SPORTS WRITER

The NFL free agent market is scheduled to open March 3, but it could be pushed back until April 1 if there is enough progress made in the next couple of weeks in negotiations for an extension of the collective bargaining agreement.

According to a source with knowledge of the talks, there have been advances in some areas since the Super Bowl ended 10 days ago that could lead to a delay in free agency. The NFL and the union still have a very long way to go, but the sense of urgency has intensified. The dance, for now, hasn't changed: One step forward, two steps back.

The sides met yesterday in New York. "The only good news is there is a lot of talk," the source said last night. "That is usually a good sign. Both sides are feeling pressure to get it done within a reasonable time period."

If the market opens without a CBA extension, it would make contract negotiations much more complicated. Signing bonuses can be prorated for only four years instead of what is usually a maximum of seven in the first year of a new CBA. With no extension, 2007 will be an uncapped year. As a result, the money in all new contracts, other than signing bonus, would be subject to the "30% rule" going into an uncapped year. That means if a player signs a deal for $1 million in base salary and roster and reporting bonuses in 2006, he can't get more than $300,000 (30%) increases in succeeding years.

The biggest names scheduled to be unrestricted free agents are league MVP and rushing champion Shaun Alexander and Colts running back Edgerrin James.

 

[BlueOnion]

You are still thinking about this too much in the perspective of this being 32 different teams. This is one NFL league with 32 shares.

I have been thinking about your comment about 'one league with 32 shares'. Does this mean when Pittsburgh gets the opportunity to resell the naming rights to Heinz Field that each franchise gets one vote? If the league is truly one league with 32 shares, I would hope the Redskins get just as much input on any new naming rights of Heinz field as the Steelers do.Would you agree with this?

 

[Godsbrother]

You are still thinking about this too much in the perspective of this being 32 different teams.  This is one NFL league with 32 shares.

I have been thinking about your comment about 'one league with 32 shares'. Does this mean when Pittsburgh gets the opportunity to resell the naming rights to Heinz Field that each franchise gets one vote? If the league is truly one league with 32 shares, I would hope the Redskins get just as much input on any new naming rights of Heinz field as the Steelers do.Would you agree with this?

I don't think the owners view it as one league with 32 shares. Each team is independently owned and operated. They share some revenues and operating costs and rules are governed and inforced by the central league office. The Steelers and the city of Pittsburgh control the naming rights of Heinz Field. The Redskins control the naming rights FedEx Field. They are each free to make their own deals although the league probably has final approval so they can give a thumbs down if they don't want their name associated with the product (i.e Preperation H field, Trojan Condom Stadium, etc.)

 

[thayman]

fantastic points made....ecspecially by Blue Onion.....I think they should come to some agreement soon, the owners will get themselves together soon. Although in fantasy land having an uncapped year sounds great, that would really screw the league up in the long run and I think the majority of owners realize this.

There doesn't seem to be any huge disagreement between the owners and players (at least not yet) that they can't work out, over all I think everything will be fine, but I can say that I'm starting to get a bit worried

 

[BlueOnion]

I don't think the owners view it as one league with 32 shares.  Each team is independently owned and operated.  They share some revenues and operating costs and rules are governed and inforced by the central league office. 

The Steelers and the city of Pittsburgh control the naming rights of Heinz Field.  The Redskins control the naming rights FedEx Field.  They are each free to make their own deals although the league probably has final approval so they can give a thumbs down if they don't want their name associated with the product (i.e Preperation H field, Trojan Condom Stadium, etc.)

I agree completely, but this is the crux of the problem. Lets look at naming rights; Heinz Field, FedEx field and shared revenue. The NFLPA is saying the local revenues for teams is becoming much more significant (in our case, lets say field naming rights) and the players want a cut of some of these local revenues. The current formula is to pool all designated shared revenue, take 68% of the pooled shared revenue and set the minimum and maximum salary cap numbers.

For example (I am surmizing what the CBA formula is):

Calculating the Salary Cap Number, aka the player's cut:

[(Total Pooled Revenue) * .68] / 32 = Salary cap numbers

Calculating the shared revenue, aka the owner's cut:

((Total Pooled Revenue) - ((Total Pooled Revenue) * .68))/32 = each team's cut

Currently "Total Pooled Revenue" is the National Television contract and other national revenue items. This is where it starts to get more complicated if the league is to include 'local revenue' [field naming rights in our example] into the "Total Pooled Revenue".

a) If Snyder is bringing in $X.XX for the naming rights of FedEx Field, the Rooney's are bringing in $Y.YY for the naming rights of Heinz Field and Snyder has to pick up the difference of $X.XX - $Y.YY, shouldn't Daniel Snyder have more input on the naming rights of Heinz Field than the Rooney's?

b) If local revenues are included in the 'Total Pooled Revenue', then this jacks up the salary cap numbers. And if the smaller markets are not getting a good chunk of the big markets local revenues (basically for free), then they could be outpriced by the salary cap minimum and maximums (which are dictated by the actual volume of 'total pooled revenue').

 

[JaxBill]

There is talk making its way through the league that the NFL and the players association are close to agreeing on a new collective bargaining agreement. There has been steady progress the past week, giving hope to both sides. The NFL has called a special owners meeting for next week in Dallas. All the doom and gloom of the past year regarding a potential agreement has suddenly been replaced by optimism.

"There has been some good talks this week," said a league source. One issue that seemed to be clouding the talks was the improved revenue sharing between high- and low-revenue teams. But the word is the owners will wait until after a getting an agreement with the NFLPA before worrying about that problem.

The players want a higher percentage of the total revenue, which is believed to be one point that the two sides are close to agreeing on. Don't be shocked to see a new agreement in place in the next week. If that happens, the free-agency period should begin March 3 as planned. With no agreement, the opening of the free-agency period could get pushed back to April.

http://cbs.sportsline.com/nfl/story/9244108/rss

 

[JaxBill]

Another twist-

The lack of a CBA could delay/threaten league loans to Cowboys/Jets for new stadiums.

http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/...html?from_rss=1

 

[David Yudkin]

Sides no closer on labor talks

By Jarrett Bell, USA TODAY

Posted 2/20/2006 12:07 AM

Uncertainty is the word of the day in the NFL. The free agent market and the league's new calendar year are set to commence March 3, but typical offseason plans that revolve around managing the salary cap have been thrown out of whack by the absence of a new collective bargaining agreement between the league and its players. Although the CBA doesn't expire until after the 2007 season, the ramifications of that possibility are very much in the present realm.

"Everybody's worried about it," Denver Broncos coach Mike Shanahan says. "Everybody is feeling this. You've got to have two plans — a plan for a CBA and for no CBA. It's a big difference in those two. Then, if there's no CBA reached, when does it happen? The middle of March? Next year? Everybody has to get ready for no CBA being reached. Not many people realize what the impact will be."

Representatives of the Management Council and the Players Association will continue negotiating sessions Tuesday and Wednesday. But the two sides have bargained for more than two years without securing a new pact, and NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw said Sunday that he's "very pessimistic" about talks that have yielded virtually no progress for months.

Besides differences in how much of the revenue players will receive, Upshaw sees a rift between owners in revising their own revenue- and cost-sharing model as a major sticking point.

"We're running out of time," Upshaw said during a telephone interview. "I'm at my bottom line. I have nowhere else to go. I've said for years that the only thing that would prevent us from getting a deal was if one side gets greedy. Well, they've gotten greedy."

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello refused comment Sunday. During a Super Bowl news conference this month, Commissioner Paul Tagliabue said, "There needs to be an additional dose of realities, on both sides of the table."

If a deal isn't struck before March 3 — which is dependent on progress this week — it lays the groundwork for 2007 becoming an uncapped year as stipulated by the current CBA.

An uncapped year threatens to disrupt competitive balance and skew the market. It would also limit some players who now might be eligible for unrestricted free agency in 2007; in an uncapped scenario, players would suddenly need six years, rather than four, to be eligible to be unrestricted free agents.

Upshaw contends the players wouldn't go back to a salary-cap system. "Once the players get something, I'm never going to ask them to take less," he said.

More immediate effects will be triggered if the 2006 season is the last "capped" year on the books. Consider:

• Bonuses would be limited to proration against the cap of four years, compared with as many as seven years in the past.

"Obviously, if you prorate it over a shorter time, the signing bonus won't be as high," said New Orleans Saints center LeCharles Bentley, due to become a free agent. "But teams, players, owners and agents can all get creative."

• Certain incentive clauses would count against the cap, expected to be $92 million to $95 million a team, rather than carried over to 2007.

"The lawyers who thought of these processes in 1993 were geniuses," St. Louis-based agent Ben Dogra said. "They put in these pressure points that squeeze the players and the teams. They said, 'Everybody's going to wait until the last minute to get a deal done, so we're going to force these guys to negotiate.' "

• With less flexible salary caps, free agency is expected to be bearish — Shanahan believes the market will be flooded with more talented players exposed as cap casualties than in previous years. Some teams will be hard-pressed just to get under the salary cap by March 3. "If you do not have an extension, it's tighter for everyone," Houston Texans GM Charley Casserly said.

Upshaw scoffs at speculation that the league's calendar year might be pushed back a few weeks to allow additional time to strike a new CBA.

"There's no reason to push anything back," he said.

The bigger issue is whether the parties Upshaw and Tagliabue represent will agree enough to keep future seasons' schedules intact.

LINK

 

[JaxBill]

If free agency is delayed, do they delay the other aspects of March 3rd (cutting players, getting under the cap, etc)?

What happens to TO if free agency is delayed? My understanding is that TO's contract calls for his bonus to be paid March 9th or 10th. Could the Eagles still cut him? Would they be forced to pay his roster bonus? I guess it all depends on how the contract is written. I don't know if it says "March 9, 2006" or it says 6 days after the start of the new league year.

 

[BlueOnion]

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

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

This really is a good article.

 

[JaxBill]

Upshaw pessimmistic - tells agents to not do any deals until March 2 and they should assume that 2007 will be uncapped. He also said he will not push back FA.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?i...ce=NFLHeadlines

 

[Bri]

If free agency is delayed, do they delay the other aspects of March 3rd (cutting players, getting under the cap, etc)?

What happens to TO if free agency is delayed? My understanding is that TO's contract calls for his bonus to be paid March 9th or 10th. Could the Eagles still cut him? Would they be forced to pay his roster bonus? I guess it all depends on how the contract is written. I don't know if it says "March 9, 2006" or it says 6 days after the start of the new league year.

Is TO officially an Eagle? I think that will be the difference here.