What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Robert Smith chimes in on ESPN, (1 Viewer)

BigTex

Don't mess with Texas
On the Dan Patrick show (ESPN), he was talking about the CBA and Robert Smith chimed in.

According to Robert Smith, former running back of the Vikings. The CBA is really owner vs owner. He said that the "large" market owners were tied of helping the "small" market owners. That the "large" market owners believe that the "small" market owners need to do more. And that's what this is all about.

(I'm paraphrasing)

Really? Where did he get this from?

If anyone else heard this please chime in and elaborate a little more.

 
This is the real issue. owner vs owner

Owners like Jones, Snyder etc. dont wanna share their revenue with the Green Bay, San Diego's and jacksonville's of the world.

 
Do the large market teams not realize that if small market teams can no longer compete, it lessens the value of their own teams?

 
this is the truth. The owners are all screwed up over the Gross revenue change in the CBA. Basically it creates an issue of the strong market owners with good or innovative ways of generating revenue being killed by the smaller teams that do nothing. There are two problems: 1) this system rewards bad clubs (RE: Chicago) who do little to get extra money. You can be lazy and ride the coattails of innovative teams. 2) this Gross revenue number affects those teams that are still paying down ddebt from new stadiums. Rob Kraft is still paying down stadium debt that affected his "net" but since it is now "gross" he has to eat that expense as part of the new deal.

The owners need to get their act together, and no one is stepping forward to make that happen.

 
It's probably the largest issue, but don't forget that the players want 60% of total football money while the NFL won't budge from 56.8%. That equates to about a $10M difference per team. If revenue sharing amonst the owners is based on just the national revenue but the revenue sharing between the owners and players is on total football money, that $10M becomes a big deal to some teams.

If the percentage was at 56.8% then most smaller market teams probably wouldn't complain a whole lot. But if the percentage is 60%, then they feel that they need to share the total revenue between owners as well.

It seems to me that the entire situation could just be avoided possibly by making the player cut 63% of the national revenue, or something like that. Then the issue between the owners completely goes away.

 
While it is owner v. owner, I don't think local revenues would even be an issue if the players didn't want to get their hands on a piece of it.

 
Do the large market teams not realize that if small market teams can no longer compete, it lessens the value of their own teams?
The flip side of this is why should some owne such as Bidwell be able to sit around and do virtually nothing to help his team on the field and even less to market it to the nation be able to take money earned from the hard work done by the Cowboys, Raiders, Redskins, etc. of the league? I am fine with virtually all of the revenue sharing EXCEPT when it comes to marketable merchandise. Sure some of that (the legue average maybe?) should go in the general pool, but when you far outpeofm the league average (which your stellar performance has raised anyway), you should be able to keep that money. It is an incentive for the lazy owners to actually do something to promote their club rather than relying on the NFL and other teams to do it for them.
 
Do the large market teams not realize that if small market teams can no longer compete, it lessens the value of their own teams?
Exactly. In the long run, how can they not see that doing so would weaken the NFL in general, and cause less viewer interest if the same teams are winning over and over? Look at MLB. Almost every year the same teams are making the playoffs. Only Cinderella stories like the Red Sox and White Sox the last two years have brought about interest in the playoffs and World Series...
 
It's probably the largest issue, but don't forget that the players want 60% of total football money while the NFL won't budge from 56.8%. That equates to about a $10M difference per team. If revenue sharing amonst the owners is based on just the national revenue but the revenue sharing between the owners and players is on total football money, that $10M becomes a big deal to some teams.

If the percentage was at 56.8% then most smaller market teams probably wouldn't complain a whole lot. But if the percentage is 60%, then they feel that they need to share the total revenue between owners as well.

It seems to me that the entire situation could just be avoided possibly by making the player cut 63% of the national revenue, or something like that. Then the issue between the owners completely goes away.
The player cut has grown each year and last year was 65.5% of the national revenue. So it's unlikely they are going to take 63% going forward as it would be a pay cut, not an increase as they are seeking. Though the numbers reported on ESPN don't seem to add up. Last year the revenue that the player cut came from was in the $4.5 billion range, give or take a few hundred mil. ESPN is saying in the new revenue model, 3.8% equates to between $300 and $350 million. That would mean the total revenue is lik $8.5 billion. I have a hard time believing the jump is that much. Especially if the NFL is still willing to give them 56.2% of it. That would be like $4.7 billiion the players would get in the new model, with the owner's figure, vs the $2.9 bil the players got last year. So some figures must be off or something else I'm missing.

 
It's probably the largest issue, but don't forget that the players want 60% of total football money while the NFL won't budge from 56.8%.  That equates to about a $10M difference per team.  If revenue sharing amonst the owners is based on just the national revenue but the revenue sharing between the owners and players is on total football money, that $10M becomes a big deal to some teams.

If the percentage was at 56.8% then most smaller market teams probably wouldn't complain a whole lot.  But if the percentage is 60%, then they feel that they need to share the total revenue between owners as well.

It seems to me that the entire situation could just be avoided possibly by making the player cut 63% of the national revenue, or something like that.  Then the issue between the owners completely goes away.
The player cut has grown each year and last year was 65.5% of the national revenue. So it's unlikely they are going to take 63% going forward as it would be a pay cut, not an increase as they are seeking. Though the numbers reported on ESPN don't seem to add up. Last year the revenue that the player cut came from was in the $4.5 billion range, give or take a few hundred mil. ESPN is saying in the new revenue model, 3.8% equates to between $300 and $350 million. That would mean the total revenue is lik $8.5 billion. I have a hard time believing the jump is that much. Especially if the NFL is still willing to give them 56.2% of it. That would be like $4.7 billiion the players would get in the new model, with the owner's figure, vs the $2.9 bil the players got last year. So some figures must be off or something else I'm missing.
PFT reported that Total Revenue in 2005 was $5.8 billion and did calculations based on $6.0 billion in 2006. The numbers worked out pretty well. (Note to PFT bashers, salary cap data and calculations is something the are really quite good at.)
 
This is the real issue.  owner vs owner

Owners like Jones, Snyder etc. dont wanna share their revenue with the Green Bay, San Diego's and jacksonville's of the world.
I think small revenue teams want to share all the revenue.Large revenue teams want to share the costs and risks too and not give free rides to the other teams.

Think about it: if an owner risks his money to make more money. His outcomes are:

1. make money, share revenus (hopefully after costs are accounted for) and keep on 1/32 of it

2. lose money and keep 100% of the losses

This formula would ensure that no owner tries to generate additional revenue. They get all the risk without the benefits.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Do the large market teams not realize that if small market teams can no longer compete, it lessens the value of their own teams?
The flip side of this is why should some owne such as Bidwell be able to sit around and do virtually nothing to help his team on the field and even less to market it to the nation be able to take money earned from the hard work done by the Cowboys, Raiders, Redskins, etc. of the league? I am fine with virtually all of the revenue sharing EXCEPT when it comes to marketable merchandise. Sure some of that (the legue average maybe?) should go in the general pool, but when you far outpeofm the league average (which your stellar performance has raised anyway), you should be able to keep that money. It is an incentive for the lazy owners to actually do something to promote their club rather than relying on the NFL and other teams to do it for them.
That much I agree with.
 
This is the real issue.  owner vs owner

Owners like Jones, Snyder etc. dont wanna share their revenue with the Green Bay, San Diego's and jacksonville's of the world.
FYI. I've seen Green Bay's name thrown in as a small market team in this whole thing, when if act, they are considered large when it comes to revenue. Plus, they don't have an owner, so all money goes directly back to the team. I'm trying to find an article on this, as I just read it a week or two ago.ETA: That doesn't mean they wouldn't be hurt if revenue sharing went away. On the contrary, they'd be hurt more than most.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's probably the largest issue, but don't forget that the players want 60% of total football money while the NFL won't budge from 56.8%.  That equates to about a $10M difference per team.  If revenue sharing amonst the owners is based on just the national revenue but the revenue sharing between the owners and players is on total football money, that $10M becomes a big deal to some teams.

If the percentage was at 56.8% then most smaller market teams probably wouldn't complain a whole lot.  But if the percentage is 60%, then they feel that they need to share the total revenue between owners as well.

It seems to me that the entire situation could just be avoided possibly by making the player cut 63% of the national revenue, or something like that.  Then the issue between the owners completely goes away.
The player cut has grown each year and last year was 65.5% of the national revenue. So it's unlikely they are going to take 63% going forward as it would be a pay cut, not an increase as they are seeking. Though the numbers reported on ESPN don't seem to add up. Last year the revenue that the player cut came from was in the $4.5 billion range, give or take a few hundred mil. ESPN is saying in the new revenue model, 3.8% equates to between $300 and $350 million. That would mean the total revenue is lik $8.5 billion. I have a hard time believing the jump is that much. Especially if the NFL is still willing to give them 56.2% of it. That would be like $4.7 billiion the players would get in the new model, with the owner's figure, vs the $2.9 bil the players got last year. So some figures must be off or something else I'm missing.
greg,Last year was net revenue shared. Now they are talking about gross revenue. The PSL's, skyboxes, stadium stuff and the like were never taken into the old revenue sharing figures. That is where the discrepancy lies.

 
greg,

Last year was net revenue shared. Now they are talking about gross revenue. The PSL's, skyboxes, stadium stuff and the like were never taken into the old revenue sharing figures. That is where the discrepancy lies.
No, I get that what is termed "revenue" has changed. I was saying the player's chunk based on what the old "revenue" was, and the player's chunk based on what the new "revenue" is but at a lower percentage, shouldn't have resulted in nearly doubling the player's net chunk, as the numbers seemed to suggest.

Now the PFT numbers sound a lot better if the change in the definition of revenue only makes it a $2b increase instead of a $4b one. Then the player's net raise (using the owner's 56.2% offer) is on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars, not multi-billion.

Basically I'm trying to figure out how much more net the players are asking for than what they got last year. The revenue amount (and definition) has changed, and so has the percentage of that revenue they got. But I want to know net dollars.

 
It's probably the largest issue, but don't forget that the players want 60% of total football money while the NFL won't budge from 56.8%. That equates to about a $10M difference per team. If revenue sharing amonst the owners is based on just the national revenue but the revenue sharing between the owners and players is on total football money, that $10M becomes a big deal to some teams.

If the percentage was at 56.8% then most smaller market teams probably wouldn't complain a whole lot. But if the percentage is 60%, then they feel that they need to share the total revenue between owners as well.

It seems to me that the entire situation could just be avoided possibly by making the player cut 63% of the national revenue, or something like that. Then the issue between the owners completely goes away.
The player cut has grown each year and last year was 65.5% of the national revenue. So it's unlikely they are going to take 63% going forward as it would be a pay cut, not an increase as they are seeking. Though the numbers reported on ESPN don't seem to add up. Last year the revenue that the player cut came from was in the $4.5 billion range, give or take a few hundred mil. ESPN is saying in the new revenue model, 3.8% equates to between $300 and $350 million. That would mean the total revenue is lik $8.5 billion. I have a hard time believing the jump is that much. Especially if the NFL is still willing to give them 56.2% of it. That would be like $4.7 billiion the players would get in the new model, with the owner's figure, vs the $2.9 bil the players got last year. So some figures must be off or something else I'm missing.
Fair enough. I was just throwing out numbers without any real idea what the actual percentages currently are. My point was just to say that instead of even dragging total football dollars into the mess, simply increasing the percentage of national revenues that they receive by a decent amount would have seemed like the better route.
 
The NFL was built buy owners like Wellington Mara that put the league success before their own profits.

The concept of the owners squabbling over money is bumming me out. If the NFL turns into MLB I will be very depressed. Very. :(

 
MLB????

What is that? It has not even existed in my mind since the late 80's early 90's.

As a matter of fact, it ceased being a sport when the 1st team bought a championship instead of earning it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The NFL was built buy owners like Wellington Mara that put the league success before their own profits.

The concept of the owners squabbling over money is bumming me out. If the NFL turns into MLB I will be very depressed. Very. :(
exactlynote to players and owners: figure it out or #### off

 
The NFL was built buy owners like Wellington Mara that put the league success before their own profits.

The concept of the owners squabbling over money is bumming me out. If the NFL turns into MLB I will be very depressed. Very. :(
A changing of the guard that started with Jerry Jones & DeBartolo is now being accelerated. Football teams will soon be run exclusively by money men, not football men.
 
The NFL was built buy owners like Wellington Mara that put the league success before their own profits.

The concept of the owners squabbling over money is bumming me out. If the NFL turns into MLB I will be very depressed. Very. :(
A changing of the guard that started with Jerry Jones & DeBartolo is now being accelerated. Football teams will soon be run exclusively by money men, not football men.
I hope the Rooney family stands up and takes charge. Some of the youngsters in on the money grab need to be set straight. The millions they're making now can be attributed to lots of guys six feet under. The newer generation of owners is getting to stand on the shoulders of giants. They ought not piss on them while they're up there.
 
The NFL was built buy owners like Wellington Mara that put the league success before their own profits.

The concept of the owners squabbling over money is bumming me out. If the NFL turns into MLB I will be very depressed. Very. :(
A changing of the guard that started with Jerry Jones & DeBartolo is now being accelerated. Football teams will soon be run exclusively by money men, not football men.
I hope the Rooney family stands up and takes charge. Some of the youngsters in on the money grab need to be set straight. The millions they're making now can be attributed to lots of guys six feet under. The newer generation of owners is getting to stand on the shoulders of giants. They ought not piss on them while they're up there.
Puhleeaassseeeeeee! How about the Rooney family standing up to the do nothing franchises and telling them to make their teams and their marketing departments better? The good owners aren't talking about eliminating revenue sharing, but they are balking at sharing every last dime -- as they should!Bob Kraft built his stadium with his money. He took the risks. I didn't see the Cardinals, Jags, Colts, or anybody else stepping up to help defray the costs. So Kraft gets it built an then has to share EVERY dime he makes from it? That's is beyond absurd. I personally WANT ownrs building stadiums rather than using tax dollars to fund the entire thing. So Kraft takes the risks, helps his fans out by not biliking them with the whole bill through taxes and you want to take all of his profits away and give him back 1/32? Wow, I'm sure owners will be jumping at the chance to improve things then.

Right now the NFL allows teams to opt out of the revenue sharing of merchandise IF, and only IF, they contribute a set amount to the league regardless of what they make. The scale is fluid, so when the Cowboys opted out, they paid more than the Bucs would due to having historically higher sales.

So the Cowboys pay the fee and then go out and bust their butts to market stuff. They do an amazing job and end up making more than in previous years. Now you want them to share that as well? Please, they took a risk and should get the reward.

The newer generation of owners is getting to stand on the shoulders of giants
yes, giants who took risks and were rewarded. Giants who had no salary cap for 50 years and no free agency for almost as long. Giants have vision. They do not sit around and ride the coattails of hard working owners. These owners are willing to share more than any set of owners EVER has, but they are not willing to share everything, especially not that which they made on their own effort while assuming ALL of the risks.
 
Do the large market teams not realize that if small market teams can no longer compete, it lessens the value of their own teams?
I don't think this is the issue. From what I understand, the proposal from the NFLPA would work and all teams could spend up to the salary cap maximum. The small owners complaint is, "If I spend up to the cap, it will cut into my take home pay."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is the real issue.  owner vs owner

Owners like Jones, Snyder etc. dont wanna share their revenue with the Green Bay, San Diego's and jacksonville's of the world.
FYI. I've seen Green Bay's name thrown in as a small market team in this whole thing, when if act, they are considered large when it comes to revenue. Plus, they don't have an owner, so all money goes directly back to the team. I'm trying to find an article on this, as I just read it a week or two ago.ETA: That doesn't mean they wouldn't be hurt if revenue sharing went away. On the contrary, they'd be hurt more than most.
Green Bay is a big problem for the NFL for this reason and is probably hurting the current CBA negogiation. The people who own Green Bay have opted not to sell the naming rights of their field and elected not to benefit from this revenue stream. I believe the reason is, "They don't want to sell out". However, they certainly want a cut of all the revenue generated by other clubs selling the naming rights to their field.The people of Green Bay are not interested in putting their money at risk to earn money; in other words they don't want to share the risk. However, they do want a cut of any revenue other owners generate by putting their money at risk.

As I Viking fan, if the salary cap goes away and Green Bay is not given a level playing field, I will be very dissapointed.

 
The NFL was built buy owners like Wellington Mara that put the league success before their own profits.

The concept of the owners squabbling over money is bumming me out. If the NFL turns into MLB I will be very depressed. Very. :(
A changing of the guard that started with Jerry Jones & DeBartolo is now being accelerated. Football teams will soon be run exclusively by money men, not football men.
I hope the Rooney family stands up and takes charge. Some of the youngsters in on the money grab need to be set straight. The millions they're making now can be attributed to lots of guys six feet under. The newer generation of owners is getting to stand on the shoulders of giants. They ought not piss on them while they're up there.
This is a truly tasteless post Shick!. Did the Rooney's make the sacrifice to pay for their own stadium or did they lean on the tax payers of Pittsburgh?
 
While it is owner v. owner, I don't think local revenues would even be an issue if the players didn't want to get their hands on a piece of it.
I don't think their request is unreasonable.
 
The NFL was built buy owners like Wellington Mara that put the league success before their own profits.

The concept of the owners squabbling over money is bumming me out. If the NFL turns into MLB I will be very depressed. Very. :(
A changing of the guard that started with Jerry Jones & DeBartolo is now being accelerated. Football teams will soon be run exclusively by money men, not football men.
I hope the Rooney family stands up and takes charge. Some of the youngsters in on the money grab need to be set straight. The millions they're making now can be attributed to lots of guys six feet under. The newer generation of owners is getting to stand on the shoulders of giants. They ought not piss on them while they're up there.
This is a truly tasteless post Shick!. Did the Rooney's make the sacrifice to pay for their own stadium or did they lean on the tax payers of Pittsburgh?
First of all, the Rooneys main business is football unlike Snyder, Jones and Kraft that were all multi-millionaires from other businesses. The Rooneys and other family-run teams simply do not have the kind of money that owners like Snyder have.Secondly, the Rooney's paid $123 million of the $230 million it cost to build Heinz Field. Unlike Snyder and Kraft, the Rooneys do not own the stadium so in effect the Steelers gave the city $123 million to use the field 10 times a year.

The facility is also used by the University of Pittsburgh and is used by the city for other purposes (concerts, high school football games, etc.). The Steelers do not receive revenues from these other events. I don't know if there are other events at FedEx Field but I would bet that if there are then I am sure Snyder receives revenue from it.

 
The NFL was built buy owners like Wellington Mara that put the league success before their own profits.

The concept of the owners squabbling over money is bumming me out. If the NFL turns into MLB I will be very depressed. Very. :(
A changing of the guard that started with Jerry Jones & DeBartolo is now being accelerated. Football teams will soon be run exclusively by money men, not football men.
I hope the Rooney family stands up and takes charge. Some of the youngsters in on the money grab need to be set straight. The millions they're making now can be attributed to lots of guys six feet under. The newer generation of owners is getting to stand on the shoulders of giants. They ought not piss on them while they're up there.
This is a truly tasteless post Shick!. Did the Rooney's make the sacrifice to pay for their own stadium or did they lean on the tax payers of Pittsburgh?
First of all, the Rooneys main business is football unlike Snyder, Jones and Kraft that were all multi-millionaires from other businesses. The Rooneys and other family-run teams simply do not have the kind of money that owners like Snyder have.
Explain to me why having these sort of entities are good for football? What do they bring to the table?
 
The NFL was built buy owners like Wellington Mara that put the league success before their own profits.

The concept of the owners squabbling over money is bumming me out. If the NFL turns into MLB I will be very depressed. Very. :(
A changing of the guard that started with Jerry Jones & DeBartolo is now being accelerated. Football teams will soon be run exclusively by money men, not football men.
I hope the Rooney family stands up and takes charge. Some of the youngsters in on the money grab need to be set straight. The millions they're making now can be attributed to lots of guys six feet under. The newer generation of owners is getting to stand on the shoulders of giants. They ought not piss on them while they're up there.
This is a truly tasteless post Shick!. Did the Rooney's make the sacrifice to pay for their own stadium or did they lean on the tax payers of Pittsburgh?
First of all, the Rooneys main business is football unlike Snyder, Jones and Kraft that were all multi-millionaires from other businesses. The Rooneys and other family-run teams simply do not have the kind of money that owners like Snyder have.
Explain to me why having these sort of entities are good for football? What do they bring to the table?
It was "entities" like the Rooney's that built the NFL. In nearly every conflict that occurred in the NFL the Rooneys were instrumental in getting it resolved. The Rooneys have brought a heckuva lot more to the table than Dan Snyder.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The NFL was built buy owners like Wellington Mara that put the league success before their own profits.

The concept of the owners squabbling over money is bumming me out. If the NFL turns into MLB I will be very depressed. Very. :(
A changing of the guard that started with Jerry Jones & DeBartolo is now being accelerated. Football teams will soon be run exclusively by money men, not football men.
I hope the Rooney family stands up and takes charge. Some of the youngsters in on the money grab need to be set straight. The millions they're making now can be attributed to lots of guys six feet under. The newer generation of owners is getting to stand on the shoulders of giants. They ought not piss on them while they're up there.
This is a truly tasteless post Shick!. Did the Rooney's make the sacrifice to pay for their own stadium or did they lean on the tax payers of Pittsburgh?
First of all, the Rooneys main business is football unlike Snyder, Jones and Kraft that were all multi-millionaires from other businesses. The Rooneys and other family-run teams simply do not have the kind of money that owners like Snyder have.
Explain to me why having these sort of entities are good for football? What do they bring to the table?
It was "entities" like the Rooney's that built the NFL. In nearly every conflict that occurred in the NFL the Rooneys were instrumental in getting it resolved. The Rooneys have brought a heckuva lot more to the table than Dan Snyder.
Possibly, but it is owners like the Rooneys who are holding up the CBA.
 
The NFL was built buy owners like Wellington Mara that put the league success before their own profits.

The concept of the owners squabbling over money is bumming me out. If the NFL turns into MLB I will be very depressed. Very. :(
A changing of the guard that started with Jerry Jones & DeBartolo is now being accelerated. Football teams will soon be run exclusively by money men, not football men.
I hope the Rooney family stands up and takes charge. Some of the youngsters in on the money grab need to be set straight. The millions they're making now can be attributed to lots of guys six feet under. The newer generation of owners is getting to stand on the shoulders of giants. They ought not piss on them while they're up there.
This is a truly tasteless post Shick!. Did the Rooney's make the sacrifice to pay for their own stadium or did they lean on the tax payers of Pittsburgh?
First of all, the Rooneys main business is football unlike Snyder, Jones and Kraft that were all multi-millionaires from other businesses. The Rooneys and other family-run teams simply do not have the kind of money that owners like Snyder have.
Explain to me why having these sort of entities are good for football? What do they bring to the table?
It was "entities" like the Rooney's that built the NFL. In nearly every conflict that occurred in the NFL the Rooneys were instrumental in getting it resolved. The Rooneys have brought a heckuva lot more to the table than Dan Snyder.
Possibly, but it is owners like the Rooneys who are holding up the CBA.
:link:
 
I've listened to Robert Smith a few times in the past 2 weeks on epsn radio.

The guy is a massive egomaniac & militant unionist who is convinced that he and he alone is responsible for forcing Gene Upshaw's hand and taking the players' cut from revenues from 30% to 60%.

That said, he's right on the sticking points in the CBA right now. The difference of about 4% in the player's share in the revenues and the revenue sharing plan amongst the owners. I imagine the 4% difference is going to end up being split by each side giving a bit. While 4% doesn't sound like much, it does account for a gigantic tangible sum of money.

If the owners don't want revenue sharing, all they need to do is look at the miserable failures of MLB creating a haves/have nots league where small market clubs are not viable, which in turn impeaches the credibility of the entire league. The NFLPA is trying to force the owners into making sure they don't go the way of MLB & killing the biggest golden goose in sports.

 
The NFL was built buy owners like Wellington Mara that put the league success before their own profits.

The concept of the owners squabbling over money is bumming me out. If the NFL turns into MLB I will be very depressed. Very. :(
A changing of the guard that started with Jerry Jones & DeBartolo is now being accelerated. Football teams will soon be run exclusively by money men, not football men.
I hope the Rooney family stands up and takes charge. Some of the youngsters in on the money grab need to be set straight. The millions they're making now can be attributed to lots of guys six feet under. The newer generation of owners is getting to stand on the shoulders of giants. They ought not piss on them while they're up there.
This is a truly tasteless post Shick!. Did the Rooney's make the sacrifice to pay for their own stadium or did they lean on the tax payers of Pittsburgh?
First of all, the Rooneys main business is football unlike Snyder, Jones and Kraft that were all multi-millionaires from other businesses. The Rooneys and other family-run teams simply do not have the kind of money that owners like Snyder have.
Explain to me why having these sort of entities are good for football? What do they bring to the table?
It was "entities" like the Rooney's that built the NFL. In nearly every conflict that occurred in the NFL the Rooneys were instrumental in getting it resolved. The Rooneys have brought a heckuva lot more to the table than Dan Snyder.
Possibly, but it is owners like the Rooneys who are holding up the CBA.
Only possibly? I have never read anywhere that Dan Snyder has done anything to improve the league. I do know that since he's taken over the Redskins they have been mediocre so he hasn't done a great job there.As far as the CBA goes, I am not in the owner's meetiings so I can't say who is or who isn't holding up the agreements. I am sure it will be resolved before too long in any case.

 
The NFL was built buy owners like Wellington Mara that put the league success before their own profits.

The concept of the owners squabbling over money is bumming me out. If the NFL turns into MLB I will be very depressed. Very. :(
A changing of the guard that started with Jerry Jones & DeBartolo is now being accelerated. Football teams will soon be run exclusively by money men, not football men.
I hope the Rooney family stands up and takes charge. Some of the youngsters in on the money grab need to be set straight. The millions they're making now can be attributed to lots of guys six feet under. The newer generation of owners is getting to stand on the shoulders of giants. They ought not piss on them while they're up there.
This is a truly tasteless post Shick!. Did the Rooney's make the sacrifice to pay for their own stadium or did they lean on the tax payers of Pittsburgh?
First of all, the Rooneys main business is football unlike Snyder, Jones and Kraft that were all multi-millionaires from other businesses. The Rooneys and other family-run teams simply do not have the kind of money that owners like Snyder have.
Explain to me why having these sort of entities are good for football? What do they bring to the table?
It was "entities" like the Rooney's that built the NFL. In nearly every conflict that occurred in the NFL the Rooneys were instrumental in getting it resolved. The Rooneys have brought a heckuva lot more to the table than Dan Snyder.
Possibly, but it is owners like the Rooneys who are holding up the CBA.
:link:
See Godbrothers post:
First of all, the Rooneys main business is football unlike Snyder, Jones and Kraft that were all multi-millionaires from other businesses. The Rooneys and other family-run teams simply do not have the kind of money that owners like Snyder have.
Have you not followed the CBA discussions?
 
The NFL was built buy owners like Wellington Mara that put the league success before their own profits.The concept of the owners squabbling over money is bumming me out. If the NFL turns into MLB I will be very depressed. Very. :(
A changing of the guard that started with Jerry Jones & DeBartolo is now being accelerated. Football teams will soon be run exclusively by money men, not football men.
I hope the Rooney family stands up and takes charge. Some of the youngsters in on the money grab need to be set straight. The millions they're making now can be attributed to lots of guys six feet under. The newer generation of owners is getting to stand on the shoulders of giants. They ought not piss on them while they're up there.
This is a truly tasteless post Shick!. Did the Rooney's make the sacrifice to pay for their own stadium or did they lean on the tax payers of Pittsburgh?
First of all, the Rooneys main business is football unlike Snyder, Jones and Kraft that were all multi-millionaires from other businesses. The Rooneys and other family-run teams simply do not have the kind of money that owners like Snyder have.
Explain to me why having these sort of entities are good for football? What do they bring to the table?
It was "entities" like the Rooney's that built the NFL. In nearly every conflict that occurred in the NFL the Rooneys were instrumental in getting it resolved.

The Rooneys have brought a heckuva lot more to the table than Dan Snyder.
Possibly, but it is owners like the Rooneys who are holding up the CBA.
:link:
See Godbrothers post:

First of all, the Rooneys main business is football unlike Snyder, Jones and Kraft that were all multi-millionaires from other businesses. The Rooneys and other family-run teams simply do not have the kind of money that owners like Snyder have.
Have you not followed the CBA discussions?
You're making one HUGE logical leap that you are not able to make here.

 
You're making one HUGE logical leap that you are not able to make here.
I think there are other owners more at fault than the Rooneys. If it would make you feel better I could use the Packers as an example.The root of the problem is, moving the player's cut upwards from 55% to 63% does not hurt the league; all 32 teams could still spend up to the cap. However, it is the smaller market teams that would have far less take home pay after paying up to the cap.

Owners like the Rooneys could agree to the player's request of 63% cut for the players, however the Rooneys might be forced to live off of 50,000 or 100,000 a year.

 
The NFL was built buy owners like Wellington Mara that put the league success before their own profits.

The concept of the owners squabbling over money is bumming me out. If the NFL turns into MLB I will be very depressed. Very. :(
A changing of the guard that started with Jerry Jones & DeBartolo is now being accelerated. Football teams will soon be run exclusively by money men, not football men.
I hope the Rooney family stands up and takes charge. Some of the youngsters in on the money grab need to be set straight. The millions they're making now can be attributed to lots of guys six feet under. The newer generation of owners is getting to stand on the shoulders of giants. They ought not piss on them while they're up there.
This is a truly tasteless post Shick!. Did the Rooney's make the sacrifice to pay for their own stadium or did they lean on the tax payers of Pittsburgh?
First of all, the Rooneys main business is football unlike Snyder, Jones and Kraft that were all multi-millionaires from other businesses. The Rooneys and other family-run teams simply do not have the kind of money that owners like Snyder have.
Explain to me why having these sort of entities are good for football? What do they bring to the table?
It was "entities" like the Rooney's that built the NFL. In nearly every conflict that occurred in the NFL the Rooneys were instrumental in getting it resolved. The Rooneys have brought a heckuva lot more to the table than Dan Snyder.
Possibly, but it is owners like the Rooneys who are holding up the CBA.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: It's J Jones, Danny boy Snyder, Kraft , and Glazers that are holding up the show, the Rooneys have nothing to do with this. The Rooneys always have held leagues best intrests right up there with their own personal gains, because everybody wins that way. The Jones's, Snyders and Glazers are all about the $$$$$$, "just as long as we get ours" metality is going to change the league forever, and it is quite sickening... :X

 
Last edited by a moderator:
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

It's J Jones, Danny boy Snyder, Kraft , and Glazers that are holding up the show, the Rooneys have nothing to do with this. The Rooneys always have held leagues best intrests right up there with their own personal gains, because everybody wins that way. The Jones's, Snyders and Glazers are all about the $$$$$$, "just as long as we get ours" metality is going to change the league forever, and it is quite sickening... :X
So the Rooneys are willing to increase the salary cap to 63% for the betterment of the league?
 
So the Rooneys are willing to increase the salary cap to 63% for the betterment of the league?
The Rooneys, much like te late Wellington Mara, are the predominant reason the NFL is the best product in sports entertainment. They have placed the health of the league above their own personal stake on almost every occassion - and consequently they have profited well exactly because they have made the league so healthy. They keep their eye on the big picture & let their share be a byproduct of that success, not the justification for decisions. A lot of CEOs in this country right now could do well learning that lesson. There is a very good possibility, and it may be well founded in facts, that extending the players' share of revenues to 63% or 64% would be more detrimental than beneficial. I don't know because I'm not privvy to all the accounting & finances, but I'm willing to take someone like Rooney's word for it as much more relevant than your derision.
 
:rolleyes:   :rolleyes:

It's J Jones, Danny boy Snyder, Kraft , and Glazers that are holding up the show, the Rooneys have nothing to do with this. The Rooneys always have held leagues best intrests right up there with their own personal gains, because everybody wins that way. The Jones's, Snyders and Glazers are all about the $$$$$$, "just as long as we get ours" metality is going to change the league forever, and it is quite sickening... :X
So the Rooneys are willing to increase the salary cap to 63% for the betterment of the league?
Where are you getting this "63%" number ? Show me a link to backup your statements on how the Rooneys are "possibly" the problem here... :link: :link: :link:
 
:rolleyes:   :rolleyes:

It's J Jones, Danny boy Snyder, Kraft , and Glazers that are holding up the show, the Rooneys have nothing to do with this. The Rooneys always have held leagues best intrests right up there with their own personal gains, because everybody wins that way. The Jones's, Snyders and Glazers are all about the $$$$$$, "just as long as we get ours" metality is going to change the league forever, and it is quite sickening... :X
So the Rooneys are willing to increase the salary cap to 63% for the betterment of the league?
Where are you getting this "63%" number ? Show me a link to backup your statements on how the Rooneys are "possibly" the problem here... :link: :link: :link:
Show me a link where they are not? We are talking about my word against yours and if you are feeling overwhelmed, then supply a link. I am not feeling overwhelmed with your argument though.It is well documented that the NFLPA wants at least a minumum of 60% of all shared revenue. I have also read reports where the NFL owners only want to give the players a 56.x% cut.

 
If it would make you feel better I could use the Packers as an example.
You're going to blame it on packer ownership? :lmao: Good luck making that argument.
I could make a strong case for it.
I'm listening.
We could start with field naming rights. Whose decision was it to not sell the naming rights of Lambeau Field? And who should be responsible for subsidizing the Packers for not excercising this revenue stream. I can assure you they are not the same person and this is the crux of the problem with the CBA.
 
It is well documented that the NFLPA wants at least a minumum of 60% of all shared revenue.  I have also read reports where the NFL owners only want to give the players a 56.x% cut.
Those are the correct numbers. I'm not sure where 63% is coming from either, but you brought it up.Still waiting for your case against the GB ownership with great anticipation...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top