Robert Smith chimes in on ESPN, (1 Viewer)

[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.

Good stuff there...

I have no idea why I would say that, maybe because it was in the article I quoted?

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.

 

[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.

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.

I am sure you are right. Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones are dying to give the players union anything they want.

 

[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...

I have no idea why I would say that, maybe because it was in the article I quoted?

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.

When it comes to the Rooneys, you KNOW what their intentions are, but Jerry Jones and Danny Boy Snyder, you just guess. Comical...

 

[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.

I am sure you are right. Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones are dying to give the players union anything they want.

Did you actually read the article I linked? Here is an exerpt that may answer your question.

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.

I like Rooney and to be honest if Daniel Snyder and Jerry Jones get their way, my team (the Vikings) are going to be hurt worse than the Steelers; in large part because we have never had the stable committment from an owner such as the Rooneys.But this does not mean the Rooneys are beyond perfect and immune to criticism. I personally think the the large market owners (Snyder and Jones) have a legit point and I think the NFLPA has a legit point. The "I am Dan Rooney" rebuttal is just not carrying a lot of weight with me.

 

[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.

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.

I am sure you are right. Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones are dying to give the players union anything they want.

Did you actually read the article I linked? Here is an exerpt that may answer your question.

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.

I like Rooney and to be honest if Daniel Snyder and Jerry Jones get their way, my team (the Vikings) are going to be hurt worse than the Steelers; in large part because we have never had the stable committment from an owner such as the Rooneys.But this does not mean the Rooneys are beyond perfect and immune to criticism. I personally think the the large market owners (Snyder and Jones) have a legit point and I think the NFLPA has a legit point. The "I am Dan Rooney" rebuttal is just not carrying a lot of weight with me.

I read the article. Please show me where it says that big market teams want to give into the NFLPA demands of 60%. I am not saying I agree with one owner's position over any others, mainly because I don't know exactly where they stand. The only thing we know for sure is the owners voted unanimously into NOT giving into the NFLPA. You seem to think that Snyder and Jones are ready to give into the union's demands. All I am asking for is the source of this info.

 

[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.

I am sure you are right. Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones are dying to give the players union anything they want.

Did you actually read the article I linked? Here is an exerpt that may answer your question.

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.

I like Rooney and to be honest if Daniel Snyder and Jerry Jones get their way, my team (the Vikings) are going to be hurt worse than the Steelers; in large part because we have never had the stable committment from an owner such as the Rooneys.But this does not mean the Rooneys are beyond perfect and immune to criticism. I personally think the the large market owners (Snyder and Jones) have a legit point and I think the NFLPA has a legit point. The "I am Dan Rooney" rebuttal is just not carrying a lot of weight with me.

It's the Cardinals and Jaguars of this league that Jones and Snyder are not happy with, and without Rooney, once again stepping up to the plate with Richardson yesterday not getting an extension, the league as a whole would be in a world of doo-doo. The Rooneys are not perfect people, and are in business to make money, but they look at the long term and what is best for the league as well as what is best for them, unlike the Joneses and Snyders who would love to stuff every dime they can into their pocket. If they had it there way, it would be a two all-star team league, Redskins Vs. Cowboys....screw everyone else.

 

[BlueOnion]

I read the article. Please show me where it says that big market teams want to give into the NFLPA demands of 60%. I am not saying I agree with one owner's position over any others, mainly because I don't know exactly where they stand.

The only thing we know for sure is the owners voted unanimously into NOT giving into the NFLPA. You seem to think that Snyder and Jones are ready to give into the union's demands. All I am asking for is the source of this info.

For myself, I believe I have spelled it out; it says owners are asking for 56.x, players want 60. It then says owners are not on hte same page in regards to 56.x. The next paragraph explains the conflict for the small market owners.I am really not interested in changing your opinion, but I don't mind sharing information. I think the following link is quite educational in regards to the labor disagreements and it makes some of the arguments I am making, but it also raises the issues you are bringing up.

Overall, a quality link. linky

 

[Godsbrother]

I read the article.  Please show me where it says that big market teams want to give into the NFLPA demands of 60%.  I am not saying I agree with one owner's position over any others, mainly because I don't know exactly where they stand. 

The only thing we know for sure is the owners voted unanimously into NOT giving into the NFLPA.  You seem to think that Snyder and Jones are ready to give into the union's demands.  All I am asking for is the source of this info.

For myself, I believe I have spelled it out; it says owners are asking for 56.x, players want 60. It then says owners are not on hte same page in regards to 56.x. The next paragraph explains the conflict for the small market owners.I am really not interested in changing your opinion, but I don't mind sharing information. I think the following link is quite educational in regards to the labor disagreements and it makes some of the arguments I am making, but it also raises the issues you are bringing up.

Overall, a quality link. linky

That article does an excellent job describing the issues owners have amongst themselves. But I don't see where the small market teams are holding up the CBA. Is your position that if the owners were in agreement in how the local revenues were to be distributed among the 32 teams then they would agree to the 60% the NFLPA is demanding?

 

[BlueOnion]

Is your position that if the owners were in agreement in how the local revenues were to be distributed among the 32 teams then they would agree to the 60% the NFLPA is demanding?

The bolded words is a little ambigous. 'How' could mean a lot of things; all teams get 32 equal shares, Snyder gets 99%, each club gets a proportion of what they put in.Here is what I believe is the biggest difference between small market owners and big market owners.

For owners like Snyder, Kraft and Jones this is no big deal, the actual NFL Franchise is not their 'cash cow'. They bring in other revenues for any sort of liquid type cash (aka a paycheck or something) they may need. These large market owners consider their franchises an investment not a business; meaning the mere annual appreciation of their franchise is enough of a return on their dollar for them to be happy. Edited to Add (All the while their franchise is appreciating, they are embarking on other 'local revenue' streams and piggy-back riding on the NFL name.)

For owners like Brown, Rooney and Bidwell, they treat their NFL franchise like a business instead of investments. Meaning if their franchise appreciates 75 million in one year, it still will not put any food on their plate for their family if the annual operating costs is $0.00.

So I believe the NFLPA is pushing the owners for a piece big enough to push the owners as close as possible to a net profit of $0.00 on an annual basis; and this would only hurt the owners who treat their franchise like a business.

I could very well be wrong. I am sure I am not dead-on, but I suspect I am in the ball park of what is going on.

 

[Godsbrother]

Okay. I think we beat this into the ground as much as we are going to. Let's just hope they get this thing settled soon.

 

[BlueOnion]

Okay. I think we beat this into the ground as much as we are going to. Let's just hope they get this thing settled soon.

And to be honest, I hope Rooney has more influence in the outcome than Jones or Snyder.

 

[Hunterbeer]

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.

I am sure you are right. Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones are dying to give the players union anything they want.

Did you actually read the article I linked? Here is an exerpt that may answer your question.

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.

I like Rooney and to be honest if Daniel Snyder and Jerry Jones get their way, my team (the Vikings) are going to be hurt worse than the Steelers; in large part because we have never had the stable committment from an owner such as the Rooneys.But this does not mean the Rooneys are beyond perfect and immune to criticism. I personally think the the large market owners (Snyder and Jones) have a legit point and I think the NFLPA has a legit point. The "I am Dan Rooney" rebuttal is just not carrying a lot of weight with me.

It's the Cardinals and Jaguars of this league that Jones and Snyder are not happy with, and without Rooney, once again stepping up to the plate with Richardson yesterday not getting an extension, the league as a whole would be in a world of doo-doo. The Rooneys are not perfect people, and are in business to make money, but they look at the long term and what is best for the league as well as what is best for them, unlike the Joneses and Snyders who would love to stuff every dime they can into their pocket. If they had it there way, it would be a two all-star team league, Redskins Vs. Cowboys....screw everyone else.

This is a just a joke of a statement with nothing to support it. I think Jones, Snyder, Kraft, et al want the league to be as strong as possible. They don't need the money. The league, in their opinion, is strong when there are active owners going out and trying to promote the product. They are tired of do nothing owners taking an equal portion of revenues they have done nothing to help create. Look at the marketing thing the Cowboys and Raiders opted out of. They paid the NFL alarge fee but then got to keep everything they made through merchandise sales. They took a huge risks that they would not make as much they paid the league (over the league average) and they succeeded through hard work. Now the other owners want a piece of their profit?!?! Please! That is just absurd and I hope that Jones, Snyder, and the bunch stick to their guns.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

“The NFL and the NFL Players Association have agreed to extend the start of the 2006 league year for 72 hours -- until 12:01 a.m. ET, Monday, March 6 -- in order to provide time to resume negotiations. The league year had been set to begin at 12:01 a.m. ET on Friday, March 3.”

 

[BlueOnion]

This is a just a joke of a statement with nothing to support it.

I opted to ignore him, but I am glad somebody else spoke up.

 

[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.

I am sure you are right. Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones are dying to give the players union anything they want.

Did you actually read the article I linked? Here is an exerpt that may answer your question.

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.

I like Rooney and to be honest if Daniel Snyder and Jerry Jones get their way, my team (the Vikings) are going to be hurt worse than the Steelers; in large part because we have never had the stable committment from an owner such as the Rooneys.But this does not mean the Rooneys are beyond perfect and immune to criticism. I personally think the the large market owners (Snyder and Jones) have a legit point and I think the NFLPA has a legit point. The "I am Dan Rooney" rebuttal is just not carrying a lot of weight with me.

It's the Cardinals and Jaguars of this league that Jones and Snyder are not happy with, and without Rooney, once again stepping up to the plate with Richardson yesterday not getting an extension, the league as a whole would be in a world of doo-doo. The Rooneys are not perfect people, and are in business to make money, but they look at the long term and what is best for the league as well as what is best for them, unlike the Joneses and Snyders who would love to stuff every dime they can into their pocket. If they had it there way, it would be a two all-star team league, Redskins Vs. Cowboys....screw everyone else.

This is a just a joke of a statement with nothing to support it. I think Jones, Snyder, Kraft, et al want the league to be as strong as possible. They don't need the money. The league, in their opinion, is strong when there are active owners going out and trying to promote the product. They are tired of do nothing owners taking an equal portion of revenues they have done nothing to help create. Look at the marketing thing the Cowboys and Raiders opted out of. They paid the NFL alarge fee but then got to keep everything they made through merchandise sales. They took a huge risks that they would not make as much they paid the league (over the league average) and they succeeded through hard work. Now the other owners want a piece of their profit?!?! Please! That is just absurd and I hope that Jones, Snyder, and the bunch stick to their guns.

This is a just a joke of a statement with nothing to support it.

I opted to ignore him, but I am glad somebody else spoke up.

Why can't Jerry Jones use ANY of his own money to finance the Cowboys new stadium ? Give me ONE good thing he has done for the league, please. He's the greediest SOB out there, period...From PFT

"Why should guys like Jones, who have through hard work and ingenuity made a ton of money, have to share it with others who haven't tried hard enough or smart enough to maximize their earnings?

Of course, principle has its limits. If Jones can get something for himself out of the deal, he's willing to compromise.

Specifically, we hear that Jones will yield to an expanded revenue sharing plan if he gets partial league funding for a new stadium, and if he gets a Super Bowl for it."

Just tax everyone to cover your half...

The stadium deal for Jerry Jones and the Dallas Cowboys is weighted heavily on the side of the team. The Cowboys emphasized during the tax initiative campaign that they were putting up half the money for the stadium—$325 million—but that isn’t quite true. While the city will use the new taxes to retire its side of the debt, Jones will be able to slap his own 10 percent “tax” on tickets and a $3 tax on parking to retire his side. This will amount to about $10 million a year, or $300 million over 30 years.

But that’s hardly the limit to Jones’ new revenue streams. He’ll also get 95 percent of the corporate naming rights revenue for the new facility, which could be worth $250 million to $350 million. That’s extra money, since the team’s current home, Texas Stadium, has no corporate naming contract. Jones could also earn more than $100 million by selling personal seat licenses (priority rights for buying season tickets), and the NFL is giving the Cowboys a $100 million loan they don’t have to pay back.

So before he even sells a ticket or luxury box or hot dog or beer, Jones will be up about $800 million. Take away the $325 million, and he is still ahead $475 million. Since studies have shown NFL teams usually double their profits in new digs, Jones’ estimated annual take of $40 million could balloon into an additional $1.2 billion over the life of the 30-year deal.

The city of Arlington never asked to see the Cowboys’ books before deciding to put the issue before voters. As with the Texas Rangers stadium before it, eminent domain likely will be invoked to assemble land for the football stadium; the Arlington City Council already has threatened to use it if any property owners decide to hold out. The city has claimed the area where the stadium will be built is blighted and full of crime, neither of which is true; the local housing prices and crime rates are about average for the city.

Such spurious claims in the service of forcing small property owners to sell to larger ones have become all too common. If the Supreme Court requires the justifications to be even slightly more rigorous, and if Hamilton County succeeds merely in publicizing the NFL’s notoriously secret finances, then the balance of power will shift away from the teams. And if the judges take decisive action, 2005 could be the year the public stopped lining the pockets of billionaire owners and millionaire players by paying for the places where they earn their living.

 

[Hunterbeer]

I am sure you are right. Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones are dying to give the players union anything they want.

Did you actually read the article I linked? Here is an exerpt that may answer your question.

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.

I like Rooney and to be honest if Daniel Snyder and Jerry Jones get their way, my team (the Vikings) are going to be hurt worse than the Steelers; in large part because we have never had the stable committment from an owner such as the Rooneys.But this does not mean the Rooneys are beyond perfect and immune to criticism. I personally think the the large market owners (Snyder and Jones) have a legit point and I think the NFLPA has a legit point. The "I am Dan Rooney" rebuttal is just not carrying a lot of weight with me.

It's the Cardinals and Jaguars of this league that Jones and Snyder are not happy with, and without Rooney, once again stepping up to the plate with Richardson yesterday not getting an extension, the league as a whole would be in a world of doo-doo. The Rooneys are not perfect people, and are in business to make money, but they look at the long term and what is best for the league as well as what is best for them, unlike the Joneses and Snyders who would love to stuff every dime they can into their pocket. If they had it there way, it would be a two all-star team league, Redskins Vs. Cowboys....screw everyone else.

From Me earlier:

This is a just a joke of a statement with nothing to support it. I think Jones, Snyder, Kraft, et al want the league to be as strong as possible. They don't need the money. The league, in their opinion, is strong when there are active owners going out and trying to promote the product. They are tired of do nothing owners taking an equal portion of revenues they have done nothing to help create. Look at the marketing thing the Cowboys and Raiders opted out of. They paid the NFL alarge fee but then got to keep everything they made through merchandise sales. They took a huge risks that they would not make as much they paid the league (over the league average) and they succeeded through hard work. Now the other owners want a piece of their profit?!?! Please! That is just absurd and I hope that Jones, Snyder, and the bunch stick to their guns.

Why can't Jerry Jones use ANY of his own money to finance the Cowboys new stadium ? Give me ONE good thing he has done for the league, please. He's the greediest SOB out there, period...

From PFT

"Why should guys like Jones, who have through hard work and ingenuity made a ton of money, have to share it with others who haven't tried hard enough or smart enough to maximize their earnings?

Of course, principle has its limits. If Jones can get something for himself out of the deal, he's willing to compromise.

Specifically, we hear that Jones will yield to an expanded revenue sharing plan if he gets partial league funding for a new stadium, and if he gets a Super Bowl for it."

So, Jerry is saying that if I do all of the work, I should get to keep more of the money. If the league helps out, the league shoud get a larger portion of the money. What is wrong with this? You find this greedy? There is clearly no hope in the world when people look at things that way.As for what has Jerry done to help the NFL, he was leader on the Competition Committee, was the lead owner on the current TV deals that have made a fortune for all owners, and his leadership of the NFL's Business Ventures Committee has helped spark the NFL to record earnings through advertising and merchandise sales.

The fact is that despite the misguided ramblings of many, Jones, Kraft, et al want the NFL to be as strong as possible. They have their own fortunes and are not dependent on their teams for money. They are just tired of do nothing owners holding their hands out. Read M.K. Ozanian's piece from Financial World (1993) before getting angry at any stadium deal (approved by the local voters). It points out that due to economic considerations, it may not be advantageous for team owners to spend large amounts of money on player salaries to build a championship caliber team. Owners may be more profitable by providing a team competitive enough to keep fans coming to the stadium and supplying revenue through ticket sales, parking, and concessions.

This is the Bidwell approach and show the silliness of some earlier post about the "greedy "owners. The Cowboys, Patriots, Redskins, etc. want to win, not make money.

(Oh, and to finally shoot down you other absoutely factless and ridiculous statement, there is not an owner not named Paul Allen that does more for charities than Jones.)

Paraphrased from the Jones bio:

For the past eight seasons, the Jones family has dedicated the Cowboys Thanksgiving Day halftime show as a national showcase to kick off The Salvation Army's annual Red Kettle Drive. Through the donation of national television airtime, the event has helped to increase donations to The Salvation Army's annual fund raising efforts by hundreds of millions of dollars. Major George Hood of The Salvation Army states that "by presenting the National Kettle Kickoff on Thanksgiving Day, the Dallas Cowboys have helped the Army raise over $800 million in the past eight years."

The Salvation Army points to the annual Cowboys kickoff event as one of the most effective, creative and important innovations that has been developed in the long and storied history of the organization.

Yeah, it is shame Jones is, according to your vast research into the area, the "the greediest SOB out there, period" What a joke!