Robert Smith chimes in on ESPN, (1 Viewer)

[P Boy]

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.

Who is this person in the Packers' ownership that you are speaking of that is making these decisions for their own profit?

 

[BlueOnion]

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.

I agree with a lot of what you said and I would be more willing to take Rooneys word over the words of Daniel Snyder and Jerry Jones. But I have read links representing Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyders' position and I have read links reperesenting the Rooney\Weaver proposal from last year in regards to sharing revenue and what not.And to be honest, I would much rather go with the Rooney\Weaver plan as a Viking fan, but that does not credit or discredit the position of Jones and Snyder; who have legitimate points.

 

[BlueOnion]

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.

Who is this person in the Packers' ownership that you are speaking of that is making these decisions for their own profit?

That is my question. But I can rest assure it is not Daniel Snyder (and other big market owners) who are being asked to subsidize the Packers for this decision not to sell the naming rights.

 

[BlueOnion]

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...

Fair enough and I brought up the 63% as an arbitrary number to see if people truly believe Rooney would put the well being of the league ahead of their own well being.

 

[P Boy]

That is my question. But I can rest assure it is not Daniel Snyder (and other big market owners) who are being asked to subsidize the Packers for this decision not to sell the naming rights.

Maybe you should google "Green Bay Packers ownership" and see what a fool you are making of yourself.

 

[BlueOnion]

That is my question.  But I can rest assure it is not Daniel Snyder (and other big market owners) who are being asked to subsidize the Packers for this decision not to sell the naming rights.

Maybe you should google "Green Bay Packers ownership" and see what a fool you are making of yourself.

I am well aware of who owns the Packers, but my question was not who owned the Packers but who is making the business decisions for the Packers.

 

[P Boy]

That is my question.  But I can rest assure it is not Daniel Snyder (and other big market owners) who are being asked to subsidize the Packers for this decision not to sell the naming rights.

Maybe you should google "Green Bay Packers ownership" and see what a fool you are making of yourself.

I am well aware of who owns the Packers, but my question was not who owned the Packers but who is making the business decisions for the Packers.

Here's a hint for you. As long as the team is owned by the community as it is, the Packers will continue to operate with as much cash flow as it needs. That's why your argument of naming rights for Lambeau Field is a moot point. The thousands of owners didn't want to give up the naming rights, didn't need to for financial leverage, and had no intention of pimping the club.The last team or its owners as a result in the league that will undergo financial distress is Green Bay. None of the thousands of owners of the Packers receive any tangible income from the operations of the Packers, nor have they ever expected to.

 

[BlueOnion]

Here's a hint for you. As long as the team is owned by the community as it is, the Packers will continue to operate with as much cash flow as it needs. That's why your argument of naming rights for Lambeau Field is a moot point. The thousands of owners didn't want to give up the naming rights, didn't need to for financial leverage, and had no intention of pimping the club.

The last team or its owners as a result in the league that will undergo financial distress is Green Bay. None of the thousands of owners of the Packers receive any tangible income from the operations of the Packers, nor have they ever expected to.

The bolded is exactly what I am talking about. The Packers are willing to ask other owners to share revenue, but they are not willing to share their own autonomy of their own club. Ownership is a mute point, I am only interested in who has autonomy of making business decisions; whether it is an owner or a community it does not matter to me.

The thousands of owners didn't want to give up the naming rights, didn't need to for financial leverage, and had no intention of pimping the club.

But don't you think it is disengenious of the Packers to expect revenue sharing from other clubs who did sell their naming rights?

 

[Idiot Boxer]

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.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Naming rights for stadiums are overrated. The amount of revenue generated by them is negligible in the grand scheme of things and I would argue that the NFL benefits from the presence of iconical stadiums such as Lambeau Field actually add value. Danny Snyder should respect that football's history is what he's building his empire upon and that changing the name of Lambeau Field to the Tuft's Medicated Pad Field decreases the overall value of his product more than the 1/32 share of the naming rights in such a small market.

Different markets are going to allow for different things. I think the PLAYERS are being unreasonable in asking for a share of GROSS revenue. This is what is being missed. I think it is great that owners like Kraft and Snyder invest heavily in their teams. I think having better facilities and a strong coaching staff put themseleves in position to succeed ON THE FIELD (which should be every team's goal and the motivator behind its additional expenditures). When GROSS revenues are shared, it punishes those owners who are willing to go out and spend for the extras. NET revenues should be the measuring stick. A percentage of shared NET revenues is more fair to both big and small market owners.

 

[BlueOnion]

Naming rights for stadiums are overrated. The amount of revenue generated by them is negligible in the grand scheme of things and I would argue that the NFL benefits from the presence of iconical stadiums such as Lambeau Field actually add value. Danny Snyder should respect that football's history is what he's building his empire upon and that changing the name of Lambeau Field to the Tuft's Medicated Pad Field decreases the overall value of his product more than the 1/32 share of the naming rights in such a small market.

Different markets are going to allow for different things. I think the PLAYERS are being unreasonable in asking for a share of GROSS revenue. This is what is being missed. I think it is great that owners like Kraft and Snyder invest heavily in their teams. I think having better facilities and a strong coaching staff put themseleves in position to succeed ON THE FIELD (which should be every team's goal and the motivator behind its additional expenditures). When GROSS revenues are shared, it punishes those owners who are willing to go out and spend for the extras. NET revenues should be the measuring stick. A percentage of shared NET revenues is more fair to both big and small market owners.

But you are only talking about sharing revenue. Shouldn't owners also share responsibility? This is what I believe is the sticky point.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Here's a hint for you.  As long as the team is owned by the community as it is, the Packers will continue to operate with as much cash flow as it needs.  That's why your argument of naming rights for Lambeau Field is a moot point.  The thousands of owners didn't want to give up the naming rights, didn't need to for financial leverage, and had no intention of pimping the club.

The last team or its owners as a result in the league that will undergo financial distress is Green Bay.  None of the thousands of owners of the Packers receive any tangible income from the operations of the Packers, nor have they ever expected to.

The bolded is exactly what I am talking about. The Packers are willing to ask other owners to share revenue, but they are not willing to share their own autonomy of their own club. Ownership is a mute point, I am only interested in who has autonomy of making business decisions; whether it is an owner or a community it does not matter to me.

The thousands of owners didn't want to give up the naming rights, didn't need to for financial leverage, and had no intention of pimping the club.

But don't you think it is disengenious of the Packers to expect revenue sharing from other clubs who did sell their naming rights?

The Packers have a uniquely loyal fan base. That fan base purchases licensed merchandise in a wildly disproportionate rate to other fan bases such that Packer merchandise is always amoung the top three or four sellers in the NFL. Part of the reason for that loyalty is the Packers respect for the community and for their heritage. It is entirely possible that selling the naming rights to Lambeau, one of the last true shrines in American sport, would alienate Packer fans to the point where the gross financial effect would be negative when merchandise sales are taken into account.Now one things for certain. Owners like Snyder, Jones, and Ziggy are in no position to make the judgment on the best way for the Packers to survive and thrive.

 

[P Boy]

Shouldn't owners also share responsibility? This is what I believe is the sticky point.

Responsibility for what, exactly?

 

[BlueOnion]

Shouldn't owners also share responsibility?  This is what I believe is the sticky point.

Responsibility for what, exactly?

The responsibility of how to spend money. Currently Daniel Snyder and Jerry Jones have zero input on how the Packers spent their money.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Naming rights for stadiums are overrated.  The amount of revenue generated by them is negligible in the grand scheme of things and I would argue that the NFL benefits from the presence of iconical stadiums such as Lambeau Field actually add value.  Danny Snyder should respect that football's history is what he's building his empire upon and that changing the name of Lambeau Field to the Tuft's Medicated Pad Field decreases the overall value of his product more than the 1/32 share of the naming rights in such a small market.

Different markets are going to allow for different things.  I think the PLAYERS are being unreasonable in asking for a share of GROSS revenue.  This is what is being missed.  I think it is great that owners like Kraft and Snyder invest heavily in their teams.  I think having better facilities and a strong coaching staff put themseleves in position to succeed ON THE FIELD (which should be every team's goal and the motivator behind its additional expenditures).  When GROSS revenues are shared, it punishes those owners who are willing to go out and spend for the extras.  NET revenues should be the measuring stick.  A percentage of shared NET revenues is more fair to both big and small market owners.

But you are only talking about sharing revenue. Shouldn't owners also share responsibility? This is what I believe is the sticky point.

No. Not really. Just because Daniel Snyder chooses to be very aggressive in pursuing revenue streams doesn't mean all should be required to act in such a manner. Sometimes trying to sap every dollar out of something lessens the overall value of a product (see charging for training camp attendance). The NFL is a copycat league. If Danny wants to be a barnstormer on pursuing revenue streams, then by all means, go at it. The ones that work and are truly beneficial and translatable to smaller markets WILL be picked up by those others (maybe one or two other ownerships won't fall in line, but the rest will). For his failed experiments, he shouldn't be penalized (hence NET, not GROSS). To say that each and every owner must do exactly those things that Danny does to squeeze every last penny out of his franchise is ridiuculous. Some things just don't translate.I don't agree that ALL local revenue should be shared either. Figuring out which should and shouldn't is a bigger issue, but I do think there are some local revenues that should remain with the team. (especially, say, revenue that he gets for use of the stadium for non-Redskin events. Shouldn't be shared and shouldn't be shared with the players.)

 

[BlueOnion]

The Packers have a uniquely loyal fan base.  That fan base purchases licensed merchandise in a wildly disproportionate rate to other fan bases such that Packer merchandise is always amoung the top three or four sellers in the NFL.  Part of the reason for that loyalty is the Packers respect for the community and for their heritage.  It is entirely possible that selling the naming rights to Lambeau, one of the last true shrines in American sport, would alienate Packer fans to the point where the gross financial effect would be negative when merchandise sales are taken into account.

Now one things for certain.  Owners like Snyder, Jones, and Ziggy are in no position to make the judgment on the best way for the Packers to survive and thrive.

I agree with you a 100% and as a Viking fan I really want to see Green Bay survive and thrive; beating them because they simply don't have the same revenue will not be the same for me.

Now one things for certain.  Owners like Snyder, Jones, and Ziggy are in no position to make the judgment on the best way for the Packers to survive and thrive.

Well I understand your point. But you have to understand Snyder and Jones position; if they are responsible for subsidizing these entities, are they not entitled to at least have some input on how these teams are run?It would seem the Packers are simply holding their hands out for money and saying, "Don't ask any questions, just keep putting money in my hands."

For everybody who has kids, you know what I am talking about. At some point you want to know how they are spending their money.

 

[BlueOnion]

No. Not really. Just because Daniel Snyder chooses to be very aggressive in pursuing revenue streams doesn't mean all should be required to act in such a manner. Sometimes trying to sap every dollar out of something lessens the overall value of a product (see charging for training camp attendance).

Regardless of how you feel about this, the reality is Snyder is doing it and the question is should Snyder be allowed to keep all the money? The NFLPA is saying, "Well if you are going to do it, then we should get a cut." And Snyder is saying, "I have no problem with that." However, other owners (like Rooney) are saying, "Wait a minute, we don't want to do that to our fans." So Snyder is extracting more dollars from Redskin fans in other ways. Is this much different than Rooney dipping into local tax dollars to get a stadium built? You say tomato and I say tomato, either way the money being used to build this stadiums are coming from the local residents.

 

[P Boy]

Shouldn't owners also share responsibility?  This is what I believe is the sticky point.

Responsibility for what, exactly?

The responsibility of how to spend money. Currently Daniel Snyder and Jerry Jones have zero input on how the Packers spent their money.

So you would have Jones & Snyder dictate to other teams how to run their operations?

How about the reverse? The thousands of GB owners get to dictate to Snyder how not to f-up his team?

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

The Packers have a uniquely loyal fan base.  That fan base purchases licensed merchandise in a wildly disproportionate rate to other fan bases such that Packer merchandise is always amoung the top three or four sellers in the NFL.  Part of the reason for that loyalty is the Packers respect for the community and for their heritage.  It is entirely possible that selling the naming rights to Lambeau, one of the last true shrines in American sport, would alienate Packer fans to the point where the gross financial effect would be negative when merchandise sales are taken into account.

Now one things for certain.  Owners like Snyder, Jones, and Ziggy are in no position to make the judgment on the best way for the Packers to survive and thrive.

I agree with you a 100% and as a Viking fan I really want to see Green Bay survive and thrive; beating them because they simply don't have the same revenue will not be the same for me.

Now one things for certain.  Owners like Snyder, Jones, and Ziggy are in no position to make the judgment on the best way for the Packers to survive and thrive.

Well I understand your point. But you have to understand Snyder and Jones position; if they are responsible for subsidizing these entities, are they not entitled to at least have some input on how these teams are run?It would seem the Packers are simply holding their hands out for money and saying, "Don't ask any questions, just keep putting money in my hands."

For everybody who has kids, you know what I am talking about. At some point you want to know how they are spending their money.

I believe you will find the Packers revenue streams much more favorable than those for your Vikes. Perhaps the Packers are the ones that should have input on how Synder and Jones are managing their teams. Their short sighted money grubbing could be said to be damaging the reputation of the league as a whole with fans and that will certainly effect the largest revenue strea, T.V. dollars.

 

[Sheriff66]

 

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...

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.

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.

This is what has been reported, you just throw some random number out, then say the Rooneys are "possibly" the problem and I'm "overwhelmed" by your nonsense, get over yourself dude. I don't need to provide a link, I'm not the one talking out my ###...

 

[P Boy]

I believe you will find the Packers revenue streams much more favorable than those for your Vikes. Perhaps the Packers are the ones that should have input on how Synder and Jones are managing their teams. Their short sighted money grubbing could be said to be damaging the reputation of the league as a whole with fans and that will certainly effect the largest revenue strea, T.V. dollars.

This is right on target. I'm not sure where Blue Onion is coming from when he thinks GB is going to fail as a small market franchise. It is in a very unique situation where it has no owners draining equity from the operations while they can almost literally raise a vast amount of revenue in a very short order if required. He looks at not selling the naming rights of the stadium as a negative - the fact is that the franchise is so financially healthy that it has no need to raise income by whoring Lambeau Field.

 

[BlueOnion]

So you would have Jones & Snyder dictate to other teams how to run their operations?

I would be opposed to this. But just because I oppose it doesn't mean it is a legit point.

 

[BlueOnion]

I believe you will find the Packers revenue streams much more favorable than those for your Vikes.

There is probably a lot of truth to this. The Vikings get very little revenue from home games and on top of that, they actually have to pay the State to play in the Metrodome.

Perhaps the Packers are the ones that should have input on how Synder and Jones are managing their teams. Their short sighted money grubbing could be said to be damaging the reputation of the league as a whole with fans and that will certainly effect the largest revenue strea, T.V. dollars.

If the Packers were subsidizing the Redskins and Cowboys, there would be a lot of substance to what you are saying.

 

[BlueOnion]

I believe you will find the Packers revenue streams much more favorable than those for your Vikes. 

Perhaps the Packers are the ones that should have input on how Synder and Jones are managing their teams.  Their short sighted money grubbing could be said to be damaging the reputation of the league as a whole with fans and that will certainly effect the largest revenue strea, T.V. dollars.

This is right on target. I'm not sure where Blue Onion is coming from when he thinks GB is going to fail as a small market franchise. It is in a very unique situation where it has no owners draining equity from the operations while they can almost literally raise a vast amount of revenue in a very short order if required. He looks at not selling the naming rights of the stadium as a negative - the fact is that the franchise is so financially healthy that it has no need to raise income by whoring Lambeau Field.

I think Green Bay would struggle if revenue sharing and the salary cap were done away with.

 

[P Boy]

I think Green Bay would struggle if revenue sharing and the salary cap were done away with.

And you would be wrong.

 

[BlueOnion]

I think Green Bay would struggle if revenue sharing and the salary cap were done away with.

And you would be wrong.

You are high. Quite simply, New York has one of the biggest skylines in the World containing hundreds of companies that are willing to spend whatever it takes to get a luxury suite at Giants stadium.This skyline simply does not exist in Green Bay.

I could go on and on about advertising fees for broadcast right as well.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I believe you will find the Packers revenue streams much more favorable than those for your Vikes. 

Perhaps the Packers are the ones that should have input on how Synder and Jones are managing their teams.  Their short sighted money grubbing could be said to be damaging the reputation of the league as a whole with fans and that will certainly effect the largest revenue strea, T.V. dollars.

This is right on target. I'm not sure where Blue Onion is coming from when he thinks GB is going to fail as a small market franchise. It is in a very unique situation where it has no owners draining equity from the operations while they can almost literally raise a vast amount of revenue in a very short order if required. He looks at not selling the naming rights of the stadium as a negative - the fact is that the franchise is so financially healthy that it has no need to raise income by whoring Lambeau Field.

I think Green Bay would struggle if revenue sharing and the salary cap were done away with.

Really. The Packers renovated stadium is no longer brand new but it still is amoung the top 1/3 in generating positive revenue flow. With the restuarants and the Packer HOF it generates revenue for the team even in the off season. As for merchandizing, Packer merchandize is always in the upper echelon along with the Raiders (gangwear), the Cowboys, and the current year's champ.

 

[BlueOnion]

Really. The Packers renovated stadium is no longer brand new but it still is amoung the top 1/3 in generating positive revenue flow. With the restuarants and the Packer HOF it generates revenue for the team even in the off season. As for merchandizing, Packer merchandize is always in the upper echelon along with the Raiders (gangwear), the Cowboys, and the current year's champ.

Stadium revenue is a small portion of NFL revenues. I do suspect merchandise sales the Packers would do well relative to other clubs, but merchandise sales are also a small portion of NFL revenues.

 

[P Boy]

I think Green Bay would struggle if revenue sharing and the salary cap were done away with.

And you would be wrong.

You are high. Quite simply, New York has one of the biggest skylines in the World containing hundreds of companies that are willing to spend whatever it takes to get a luxury suite at Giants stadium.This skyline simply does not exist in Green Bay.

I could go on and on about advertising fees for broadcast right as well.

Green Bay (the team) essentially owns its own stadium, and it was paid off in the 1970s. They are one of the top marketing teams in the league; do not have owners draining even 1 cent of money from the franchise; have the rights to all vendor, parking, and concessions exclusively I believe; and have the right to raise any additional income they want by simply issuing more shares of stock. They have their own Hall of Fame, which also raises substantial revenues year round.Hell, they don't even have to pay to shovel snow out of the stadium after storms - its tradition that the people of Green Bay do so themselves. They use high schools for cheerleaders & bands.

So while they don't play in a metropolis, because of their unique structuring and equity, they could stand quite well on their own. Quite frankly, you do not know what you are speaking of.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Really.  The Packers renovated stadium is no longer brand new but it still is amoung the top 1/3 in generating positive revenue flow.  With the restuarants and the Packer HOF it generates revenue for the team even in the off season.  As for merchandizing,  Packer merchandize is always in the upper echelon along with the Raiders (gangwear), the Cowboys, and the current year's champ.

Stadium revenue is a small portion of NFL revenues. I do suspect merchandise sales the Packers would do well relative to other clubs, but merchandise sales are also a small portion of NFL revenues.

But this is the crux of your argument since T.V. rights are already sold and shared.

 

[BlueOnion]

Really.  The Packers renovated stadium is no longer brand new but it still is amoung the top 1/3 in generating positive revenue flow.  With the restuarants and the Packer HOF it generates revenue for the team even in the off season.  As for merchandizing,  Packer merchandize is always in the upper echelon along with the Raiders (gangwear), the Cowboys, and the current year's champ.

Stadium revenue is a small portion of NFL revenues. I do suspect merchandise sales the Packers would do well relative to other clubs, but merchandise sales are also a small portion of NFL revenues.

But this is the crux of your argument since T.V. rights are already sold and shared.

Sure. But read my original statement that is being challenged here.

I think Green Bay would struggle if revenue sharing and the salary cap were done away with.

Pony Boy wanted to disagree with this statement.

 

[mbuehner]

Something else to consider: just because a teams revenue is relatively huge like a NY team would be doesnt automatically translate into spending equivalent amounts of money on the team. Franchise owners are going to take profits. Green Bay I suspect would be pouring its money back into its team at a higher rate than most. Looking at baseball the most profitable franchises dont always have the highest payrolls. The Cubs were the post boys of this for years, although lately that has changed.

 

[P Boy]

I think Green Bay would struggle if revenue sharing and the salary cap were done away with.

Pony Boy wanted to disagree with this statement.

I still do, and I assert that you are wrong based upon what I posted above.

 

[Big Score]

There's no doubt that in the grand scheme of things, the small market clubs would inevitably suffer without revenue sharing. Green Bay may initially weather the fall out of non revenue sharing longer than most small market clubs, but ultimately they too will falter.

Especially once the current TV revenue producing contract expires and the next TV contract is no longer split evenly amongst all the clubs. TV revenue is where the real money is. All other revenue streams for the NFL pale in comparison.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

No.  Not really.  Just because Daniel Snyder chooses to be very aggressive in pursuing revenue streams doesn't mean all should be required to act in such a manner.  Sometimes trying to sap every dollar out of something lessens the overall value of a product (see charging for training camp attendance).

Regardless of how you feel about this, the reality is Snyder is doing it and the question is should Snyder be allowed to keep all the money? The NFLPA is saying, "Well if you are going to do it, then we should get a cut." And Snyder is saying, "I have no problem with that." However, other owners (like Rooney) are saying, "Wait a minute, we don't want to do that to our fans." So Snyder is extracting more dollars from Redskin fans in other ways. Is this much different than Rooney dipping into local tax dollars to get a stadium built? You say tomato and I say tomato, either way the money being used to build this stadiums are coming from the local residents.

I'm saying he should get his investment back 100% (as the Steelers should their portion they paid for the new stadium), but that doesn't necessarily mean he's entitled to 100% of the ROI after cost.

 

[BlueOnion]

I'm saying he should get his investment back 100% (as the Steelers should their portion they paid for the new stadium), but that doesn't necessarily mean he's entitled to 100% of the ROI after cost.

Why?

 

[heyshady]

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 think this works just the opposite of what you think.Hasn't hurt the NY Yankees. Winning championship after championship after championship not only did not hurt the Yankees... it has turned a baseball team into a mythical giant. Good for Steinbrenner, not so good for everyone else.

Fact: If your team wins the stadium is sold out. Nobody on board with the winning team cares that the opposition is small market and thus can't compete. They are too busy celebrating another championship. Do you really think the millions of Yankee fans care that the KC Royals can't compete? Does anyone say, well... you know what. I feel bad about the Reds chances this year. I'm not going to support my team.

If team X dominated the NFL every year and had championship caliber team after team after team. I guarantee you the people of that state would be shelling out so much money in luxury suites and licensed junk that the owner wouldn't know where to put all his money. And nobody in that state would care less if small market teams ever won a game. You know why.... because NY can always play L.A. and have a colossal matchup.

Now you say... well the fans in the small markets aren't participating! So overall revenue is down. WRONG! That's why they are small market! They don't generate enough $$ to make a difference.

 

[lod2005]

You got to have a really low IQ to watch baseball. Pay for it? That is borderline ######o. Baseball has not existed for well over 10 years. It is as much a sport as 'Pro' wrestling. Anytime someone can buy a world championship because they have the $ to, it ceases to be a competitive sport. Baseball is pure garbage. Those sitting in the stands are the lowest IQ humanoids this planet has to offer. If I was an owner I would sit up in the skybox and laugh as I counted the $ they just handed me to watch the farce I am putting out on the field.

 

[lod2005]

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 think this works just the opposite of what you think.Hasn't hurt the NY Yankees. Winning championship after championship after championship not only did not hurt the Yankees... it has turned a baseball team into a mythical giant. Good for Steinbrenner, not so good for everyone else.

Fact: If your team wins the stadium is sold out. Nobody on board with the winning team cares that the opposition is small market and thus can't compete. They are too busy celebrating another championship. Do you really think the millions of Yankee fans care that the KC Royals can't compete? Does anyone say, well... you know what. I feel bad about the Reds chances this year. I'm not going to support my team.

If team X dominated the NFL every year and had championship caliber team after team after team. I guarantee you the people of that state would be shelling out so much money in luxury suites and licensed junk that the owner wouldn't know where to put all his money. And nobody in that state would care less if small market teams ever won a game. You know why.... because NY can always play L.A. and have a colossal matchup.

Now you say... well the fans in the small markets aren't participating! So overall revenue is down. WRONG! That's why they are small market! They don't generate enough $$ to make a difference.

And then the collapse of the lower $ teams. Montreal Expos anyone? Can't afford to pay the big name players? So who will come and watch...NO ONE. FOLD UP.

 

[Hobbes]

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's fine...if I am the owner in Arizona under this agreement then I forbid the Cowboys from selling their merchandise in my backyard because he is directly competing against me for my market's merchandising dollars....there's just no getting around the fact that some teams have national exposure and others don't....which brings up the TV deal...if I am a small market team and I have to compete with other teams for merchandising then I want equal exposure in nationally televised games (MNF, etc.). That's not going to happen any time soon and it puts the smaller market teams at a disadvantage.

 

[The Fletch]

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...

I would say, according to last year's World Series ratings, that the interest has been very mild, but I agree totally with your point.

 

[Hunterbeer]

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's fine...if I am the owner in Arizona under this agreement then I forbid the Cowboys from selling their merchandise in my backyard because he is directly competing against me for my market's merchandising dollars....there's just no getting around the fact that some teams have national exposure and others don't....which brings up the TV deal...if I am a small market team and I have to compete with other teams for merchandising then I want equal exposure in nationally televised games (MNF, etc.). That's not going to happen any time soon and it puts the smaller market teams at a disadvantage.

Oh really?!?! You would forbid me to sell merchandise? That is precious. How would you go about doing that? Tell you what, if you buy up every mall and every sporting goods store in Arizona AND you call Al Gore and buy the entire internet, then you go right ahead and do that. Until then, maybe you could try and promote your product a little more so that your team is not the visitor in its own stadium every week while you stick your hand out and take the money Jerry, Danny, and the boys are making for you.There has to be SOME point where owners get to keep money they make from their own ingenuity and their own hard work. Why try if you are stuck with only 1/32?

The players should ony get money from the NET and their should be some reward for franchises who go above and beyond league averages in pulling in revenue. Oakland is not a huge market, yet manages to do well (it is not all gangs buying their stuff).

 

[Kleck]

Fact: If your team wins the stadium is sold out.

Someone forgot to tell all those Florida Marlin fans about this fact.

 

[Godsbrother]

NFL pushes back free-agency period

By Joe Bendel

TRIBUNE-REVIEW

Friday, March 3, 2006

Agent Leigh Steinberg was not surprised to learn that the NFL free-agency period was pushed back from today's scheduled starting date until midnight Monday.

"I'm probably the only person in America, as teams peer into the apocalypse, that believes, at the very last moment, they'll make a deal," said Steinberg, who represents Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger and Southern California quarterback Matt Leinhart. "Maybe I'm certifiable or insane in what I'm saying. But I negotiate for a living, and you have to be resilient in these things. And you know what? It's just stupid."

Steinberg said NFL owners and the players' association would reach labor peace in the coming days because they don't want to "kill their golden goose."

The two sides had hoped to finalize an extension of the collective bargaining agreement yesterday, but the owners, after an hour meeting in New York City, continued their standoff with the union.

Steelers chairman Dan Rooney and Carolina Panthers owner Jerry Richardson remained in New York to keep the talks going.

"Give me Dan Rooney to work with, and I think I'd be able to help them get the thing done," Steinberg said.

The union is seeking 60 percent of revenues for players, which is 4 percent more than the owners are offering.

The sides must come to an agreement over the weekend, or the three-day reprieve will be pointless.

The consequences of an impasse would include: a 2006 salary cap of $94.5 million ($10.5 million less than anticipated), a purging of high-priced veteran players by 6 p.m. Sunday, a tough market for unrestricted free agents and an uncapped year in 2007.

There would be other consequences, too.

Players who would have become unrestricted free agents in their fourth season, would not become unrestricted until after their sixth season. They would be restricted free agents in seasons four, five and six.

Such a scenario makes agents who represent up-and-coming players cringe.

"The consequences that would occur are unpleasant," Steinberg said. "The draft picks will have a hard time being compensated the way they were the year prior. And, if we get into an uncapped year and the genie comes out of the bottle, I don't think it gets back in.

"Then, at some point, the union decertifies, and we're back to where we were 20 years ago. It's irrational and self-destructive."

Steinberg also pointed out that an uncapped year in '07 would mean no minimum salary minimum, and annual raises would be limited to 30 percent.

While the players and owners are trying to make peace, there is also the issue of unrest solely among the owners. Several high-revenue teams are balking at the suggestion of sharing profits with low-revenue teams.

But union executive director Gene Upshaw does not want to let that happen. Reason being, the high-revenue teams might spend, say, only 40 percent of their revenue on payroll to reach the salary cap, while the low-revenue teams might be forced to spend 70 percent on a similar payroll.

With the extension of free agency, some teams had a brief moment to exhale. Most spent all of Thursday scrambling to re-work deals or make decisions on what players they would release in order to be under the $94.5 million salary cap by the 10 p.m. deadline.

Some teams, such as the Denver Broncos, cut multiple key players in the previous 48 hours to protect against going over the salary cap.

But, according to ESPN.com, the league has informed teams that any player placed on waivers during this period of uncertainty can be recalled from waivers until there is more clarity about the pending free-agency period.

Teams can now hold out hope that an extension will be reached, and they'll have more room to work under the cap.

"There is so much money in professional football, this is no time for this whole thing to break down," Steinberg said. "As dire as this looks sometimes, though, I think everything is going to work out. Call me crazy. But that's what I think."

Thought Blue Onion might be interested in this. Apparently it was Dan Rooney and Carolina Panthers owner Jerry Richardson were responsible for pushing back the deadline and keeping the talks with the NFLPA going. If a deal gets work out this weekend then once again Rooney will have come through for the league.

 

[BlueOnion]

Thought Blue Onion might be interested in this.  Apparently it was Dan Rooney and Carolina Panthers owner Jerry Richardson were responsible for pushing back the deadline and keeping the talks with the NFLPA going. 

If a deal gets work out this weekend then once again Rooney will have come through for the league.

I like Rooneys and they deserve almost as much credit as Wellington Mara for where the league is today. But this story just solidifies my opinion that owners like the Rooneys are holding up the CBA

Steelers chairman Dan Rooney and Carolina Panthers owner Jerry Richardson remained in New York to keep the talks going.

"Give me Dan Rooney to work with, and I think I'd be able to help them get the thing done," Steinberg said.

The union is seeking 60 percent of revenues for players, which is 4 percent more than the owners are offering.

The issue is the 4 percent and the reason the issue is important to owners like Dan Rooney and company is the ratio of shared revenue dollars received and the salary cap maximum. Sure owners like the Rooneys could spend up to the cap (if the 60% number is agreed upon), but it significantly cuts into their annual take home pay. For the majority of other owners, they extract the majority of their take home pay from other revenue streams.I suspect owners like Daniel Snyder, Jerry Jones and Robert Kraft are only asking that the CBA agreement allows teams bottom line to break even; meaning the shared revenue can cover all the expenses. However, this agreement is bad for owners like the Rooneys who want the CBA to cover all playing expenses and their take home pay.

The owners (such as Snyder and Jones) seemed uniformed yesterday and willing to go as high as 56% to protect the Rooney's standard of living, but I don't know if this is in the best interest of the league.

FYI - I would prefer to use a different owner than Rooney because I have a lot of respect for Rooney. But the crux of the problem (I believe) are the owners who need the CBA agreement to ensure their expenses and their perceived take-home pay is protected.

 

[Godsbrother]

Thought Blue Onion might be interested in this.  Apparently it was Dan Rooney and Carolina Panthers owner Jerry Richardson were responsible for pushing back the deadline and keeping the talks with the NFLPA going. 

If a deal gets work out this weekend then once again Rooney will have come through for the league.

I like Rooneys and they deserve almost as much credit as Wellington Mara for where the league is today. But this story just solidifies my opinion that owners like the Rooneys are holding up the CBA

Steelers chairman Dan Rooney and Carolina Panthers owner Jerry Richardson remained in New York to keep the talks going.

"Give me Dan Rooney to work with, and I think I'd be able to help them get the thing done," Steinberg said.

The union is seeking 60 percent of revenues for players, which is 4 percent more than the owners are offering.

The issue is the 4 percent and the reason the issue is important to owners like Dan Rooney and company is the ratio of shared revenue dollars received and the salary cap maximum. Sure owners like the Rooneys could spend up to the cap (if the 60% number is agreed upon), but it significantly cuts into their annual take home pay. For the majority of other owners, they extract the majority of their take home pay from other revenue streams.I suspect owners like Daniel Snyder, Jerry Jones and Robert Kraft are only asking that the CBA agreement allows teams bottom line to break even; meaning the shared revenue can cover all the expenses. However, this agreement is bad for owners like the Rooneys who want the CBA to cover all playing expenses and their take home pay.

The owners (such as Snyder and Jones) seemed uniformed yesterday and willing to go as high as 56% to protect the Rooney's standard of living, but I don't know if this is in the best interest of the league.

FYI - I would prefer to use a different owner than Rooney because I have a lot of respect for Rooney. But the crux of the problem (I believe) are the owners who need the CBA agreement to ensure their expenses and their perceived take-home pay is protected.

Do you have a link where it says that owners like Snyder and Jones are willing to give into the NFLPA's demands for 60% or is this just something you made up?

 

[BlueOnion]

Thought Blue Onion might be interested in this.  Apparently it was Dan Rooney and Carolina Panthers owner Jerry Richardson were responsible for pushing back the deadline and keeping the talks with the NFLPA going. 

If a deal gets work out this weekend then once again Rooney will have come through for the league.

I like Rooneys and they deserve almost as much credit as Wellington Mara for where the league is today. But this story just solidifies my opinion that owners like the Rooneys are holding up the CBA

Steelers chairman Dan Rooney and Carolina Panthers owner Jerry Richardson remained in New York to keep the talks going.

"Give me Dan Rooney to work with, and I think I'd be able to help them get the thing done," Steinberg said.

The union is seeking 60 percent of revenues for players, which is 4 percent more than the owners are offering.

The issue is the 4 percent and the reason the issue is important to owners like Dan Rooney and company is the ratio of shared revenue dollars received and the salary cap maximum. Sure owners like the Rooneys could spend up to the cap (if the 60% number is agreed upon), but it significantly cuts into their annual take home pay. For the majority of other owners, they extract the majority of their take home pay from other revenue streams.I suspect owners like Daniel Snyder, Jerry Jones and Robert Kraft are only asking that the CBA agreement allows teams bottom line to break even; meaning the shared revenue can cover all the expenses. However, this agreement is bad for owners like the Rooneys who want the CBA to cover all playing expenses and their take home pay.

The owners (such as Snyder and Jones) seemed uniformed yesterday and willing to go as high as 56% to protect the Rooney's standard of living, but I don't know if this is in the best interest of the league.

FYI - I would prefer to use a different owner than Rooney because I have a lot of respect for Rooney. But the crux of the problem (I believe) are the owners who need the CBA agreement to ensure their expenses and their perceived take-home pay is protected.

Do you have a link where it says that owners like Snyder and Jones are willing to give into the NFLPA's demands for 60% or is this just something you made up?

I have gone through a lot of links in the past month. I'll see what I can do for you.I'll continue to dig, but I got this so far.

rockbottoms article

The sides have agreed on a number of issues. The biggest one is changing the formula for the amount of money to go to the players from "designated gross revenues" -- primarily television and ticket sales -- to "total gross revenues," which include almost every bit a money a a team generates.

However, they differ on the percentage of revenues to be allocated to the players -- the union is asking for 60 percent and the league's current offer is 56.2 percent.

However, there are also disputes among groups of owners on that issue, too. Tagliabue has called a league meeting in New York for Thursday to try to resolve them.

Teams with lower revenues -- mostly small-market clubs -- say that if the contributions to the players' fund are equally apportioned among 32 franchises, they will have to pay a substantially larger proportion of their nontelevision and ticket money because they have less. Owners of high-revenue teams, like Dallas' Jerry Jones, claim spreading the load equally would force some teams to work harder to generate new sources of money.

 

[Godsbrother]

I understand there are disputes amongst the owners but I haven't seen anything that says that Snyder, Jones, etc. are willing to meet the NFLPA's demands of 60%. In fact everything I have read is that the owners have been unanimous in that 60% is too much.

 

[BlueOnion]

I understand there are disputes amongst the owners but I haven't seen anything that says that Snyder, Jones, etc. are willing to meet the NFLPA's demands of 60%. In fact everything I have read is that the owners have been unanimous in that 60% is too much.

I think this is just good posturing from the owners, publicly displaying a unified front. I don't think it would be an indicative representation of how the owners feel behind closed doors.

 

[Sheriff66]

I understand there are disputes amongst the owners but I haven't seen anything that says that Snyder, Jones, etc. are willing to meet the NFLPA's demands of 60%.  In fact everything I have read is that the owners have been unanimous in that 60% is too much.

I think this is just good posturing from the owners, publicly displaying a unified front. I don't think it would be an indicative representation of how the owners feel behind closed doors.

Good stuff there...