MattM Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 Plus one, Doc, and weren't Kraft and Jones the super-geniuses behind the NFL Network, which most of America still doesn't have about ten years or so in due to their greed and refusal to strike a reasonable deal with most cable companies? With respect to the last CBA those two negotiated, they were either (a) stupid for not realizing what a horrible deal it allegedly is or (b) negotiating in bad faith, knowing they planned to blow the thing up in two years, to enrich themselves and other large market owners by forcing a showdown with the NFLPA that would at the same time force a less even revenue sharing deal on the small market owners. Personally I'd say it's more likely B by a whisker. If it is B, once they succeed my prediction is "MLB here we come", following you straight into the toilet. Using myself as an example, I used to love baseball as a kid until it turned into the haves and have nots. I haven't followed it closely (or paid to attend games) in years. Looks like I'm not alone, since baseball's TV ratings have sunk like a stone over that period. Parity helps make the NFL entertaining and of interest to many of its fans. If it becomes the Cheats* and the 'Pukes, while those teams may do well financially the League as a whole is going to see decreased revenue. Smaller pie gorged on by the greedy pigs....
Red Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 There's an article on Buffalo Rumblings, Arizona kicker Jay Feely has been sitting in on the CBA negotiations and has heard one of the bigger reasons why these negotiations may be more involved & take longer than they had first thought . The way i take it is, Jerry Jones being the back stabbing jack ass that MOST of us dispize , along with some other mega rich NFL owners no longer want to share !! They want to do what baseball has done and keep all there millions to them selves . All to create one or two teams that win year after year like the Yankees & basically ruin the sport we love . In the article the Bills are mentioned by Feely, stating that the owners really don't want to share the revenue that each team makes with the smaller market teams . Which is the one reason Feely believes is why the owners don't want to share the profits with the players . They want to renig on the deal that the smarter owners (of which there was only two) RW of the Bills & Brown of the Bengals didn't want in the first place , and thought RW & Brown where just some old coucks !! Kind of one of those be careful what you wish for things !! They got what they all but 2 wanted and there still not happy !! Jones is just so freaking greedy and couldn't save money if he had to as shown by his egotistical statement of building Jerry's world (which besides the teams & the play in this years SB was the suckiest SB in resent history !! The Black Eyed Peas -- PLEASE WHAT A S**T HALF TIME SHOW) If the cowboys would have went to the SB this year Jerry's head would have exploded !! WHAT A ASS !!! This guy & others like him will be the ruin of the NFL -- IF IT AIN'T BROKE DON'T FIX IT !!! The NFL has the highest TV ratings ever - is the most popular sport anywhere - has the most revenue generated of any sport any where and greed once again will ruin a great thing !! Apparently honesty is not part of these negotiations . Bills forever !!!! I honestly thought Aguilera looked like a bloated has-been and screwing up the Anthem and having the lack of intelligence to not even comment and then to show up at the Grammy's and act like a superstar?!??!? Say what you want about the Black Eyed Peas (Fergy is a freakin' knockout), atleast they knew the lyrics.
billsfan89 Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 Absolutely correct! Soccer is so much bigger it doesn't even deserve to be mentioned in the same category as the NFL. Soccer is important to about 6 billion people whereas the NFL is important to about 300 million. Soccer is at least 20 times larger. I love the way American football champions declare themselves "World Champions" when nobody else in the world plays the same game. Hubris. I would hate to break this to you but according to Hank Hill Soccer was invented by European women so they would have something to do while their husbands cooked.
Geno Smith's Arm Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 Or wastes time complaining about it? I would agree. What other sport anywhere can afford to pay it's players so much money for so few games played. Pleese currectt my spellin
truth on hold Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 (edited) The irony of course is Jones' cowboys suck and will be fighting it out with the high spending Redskins for last place in the division next season too. Edited February 16, 2011 by Joe_the_6_pack
Doc Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 Plus one, Doc, and weren't Kraft and Jones the super-geniuses behind the NFL Network, which most of America still doesn't have about ten years or so in due to their greed and refusal to strike a reasonable deal with most cable companies? With respect to the last CBA those two negotiated, they were either (a) stupid for not realizing what a horrible deal it allegedly is or (b) negotiating in bad faith, knowing they planned to blow the thing up in two years, to enrich themselves and other large market owners by forcing a showdown with the NFLPA that would at the same time force a less even revenue sharing deal on the small market owners. Personally I'd say it's more likely B by a whisker. If it is B, once they succeed my prediction is "MLB here we come", following you straight into the toilet. Using myself as an example, I used to love baseball as a kid until it turned into the haves and have nots. I haven't followed it closely (or paid to attend games) in years. Looks like I'm not alone, since baseball's TV ratings have sunk like a stone over that period. Parity helps make the NFL entertaining and of interest to many of its fans. If it becomes the Cheats* and the 'Pukes, while those teams may do well financially the League as a whole is going to see decreased revenue. Smaller pie gorged on by the greedy pigs.... I don't know who was behind NFLN. To me it seems like a trial balloon for pay-per-view (of sorts) NFL games that is so far failing. As for the 2006 CBA, the only good thing anyone could say for it (outside of the players, who loved it) is it "preserved labor peace." Well duh! If you give your workers a 5% raise, and only 0.5% less than they were asking for, of course they'll be happy! And as for the NFL turning into MLB, fortunately it takes a 3/4 majority to get things passed, so it would require 24 owners agreeing to blow-up everything. I can't see that happening.
Green Lightning Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 Contrary to popular belief, the Green Bay Packers are not free loaders. As a point of fact, the Green Bay Packers have the largest financial backing of any team in the NFL. This team is publicly owned and backed by not just the city of Green Bay, but by the Great State of Wisconsin as well. Last time I checked, In 2008 Wisconsin’s gross state product was $240.4 billion with an annual average over the last decade of $200.3 billion (source: http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Wisconsin_state_budget). The Packers aren't hurting to say the least. The Bills should be allowed to follow this model, unfortunately the NFL will no longer allow it, which is discreminatory practices to say the least. That wasn't a diss of the Packers. It was a response to some posters who equated small market teams as freeloaders that don't generate the same revenue as larger market teams. The argument is that some owners would like to only large markets have teams. My point was two of the smaller market teams just played for the Superbowl.
Geno Smith's Arm Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 I don't know who was behind NFLN. To me it seems like a trial balloon for pay-per-view (of sorts) NFL games that is so far failing. As for the 2006 CBA, the only good thing anyone could say for it (outside of the players, who loved it) is it "preserved labor peace." Well duh! If you give your workers a 5% raise, and only 0.5% less than they were asking for, of course they'll be happy! And as for the NFL turning into MLB, fortunately it takes a 3/4 majority to get things passed, so it would require 24 owners agreeing to blow-up everything. I can't see that happening. Many of these guys are probably sick of Jerry Jones too.
Mr. WEO Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 So your theory is the NFL went from $470M/year to $3.1B because the Pats and Cowboys won 6 SB's? Yeah, okay. Talk about rewriting history. The truth is that the league was already making $900M/year from the 1990-1993 TV contracts, whose negotiations predated Jerruh joining the league (1989), much less Kraft (1994). When Fox decided to become a player in 1994, they outbid CBS for the NFC package by $100M, and the league made $1.1B/year for the next 4 years. Feeling the loss of the NFL, CBS came back like gangbusters in the next round, and all the networks were worried about being outbid, and the NFL made $2.2B/year, 3 years before the Pats' first SB win. And so on and so on. That's how the (shared) money increased. Kraft was smart enough to purchase lockout insurance? Guess what? That deal was already in place before that 2006 CBA was agreed upon. So you see, a lockout back then would have been no different from one today. Except that back then, the owners should have been offering a "take it or leave it" modest pay raise, whereas now they're asking for a serious pay cut. A lockout wasn't going to happen back then. Now? And yes, Ralph was voting against his best interests in 2006. So, why did he vote "no" again? That cogent answer you're looking for is "he was looking out for the best interests of the league." He wasn't looking for a handout. But seeing as how the owners were so happy to give the players a huge raise, he figured he might as well get his. I think you understood my point before you chose to mischaracterize it. The Cowboys have a lot of fans nationally. So do the pats. Both probably have more football fans who hate them. Either way, the prominence of these teams, along with the Steelers and Colts, are what drove up the public interest in the 90's and 00's. That interest drove up the bidding for the TV rights to view NFL football (see Fox's big push to televise NFC(E) games). Anyway, guys like Kraft were negotiating the latest contracts and their extensions. The addition of the lockout guarantee was a smart move (it doens't matter when it was included--it's good for any stoppage of play). Name all the players on the Bills who got a "huge raise" in the aftermath of the 2006 CBA. We've been through this, doc--it never happened. You've already acknowledged this. Why dig up this tired canard? Plus one, Doc, and weren't Kraft and Jones the super-geniuses behind the NFL Network, which most of America still doesn't have about ten years or so in due to their greed and refusal to strike a reasonable deal with most cable companies? With respect to the last CBA those two negotiated, they were either (a) stupid for not realizing what a horrible deal it allegedly is or (b) negotiating in bad faith, knowing they planned to blow the thing up in two years, to enrich themselves and other large market owners by forcing a showdown with the NFLPA that would at the same time force a less even revenue sharing deal on the small market owners. Personally I'd say it's more likely B by a whisker. If it is B, once they succeed my prediction is "MLB here we come", following you straight into the toilet. Using myself as an example, I used to love baseball as a kid until it turned into the haves and have nots. I haven't followed it closely (or paid to attend games) in years. Looks like I'm not alone, since baseball's TV ratings have sunk like a stone over that period. Parity helps make the NFL entertaining and of interest to many of its fans. If it becomes the Cheats* and the 'Pukes, while those teams may do well financially the League as a whole is going to see decreased revenue. Smaller pie gorged on by the greedy pigs.... I think you're confused; Kraft and Jones invented the internet. In the last 10 years, the Yankees have won 1 world series. Same as the Florida Marlins (2 in 15 years), St. Louis, SF, "Anaheim", White Sox..... In the last 10 years, the pats have appeared in 4 SBs and won 3. The Steelers have appeared in three others and won 2. Revenue for MLB is at an alltime high, despite your claims about the ratings. In '09, the MLB raked in $6.6 billion, their biggest year ever. Flush twice, buddy.
K-9 Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 Many of these guys are probably sick of Jerry Jones too. Oh, absolutely. There has been discord among the owners for a while now. Jones and his ilk are resentful of having to provide the Supplemental Revenue Sharing (SRS) that the top revenue teams have to give to the lower revenue teams. That SRS is a sticking point for the players as a result. If the owners can't find agreement among themselves, I have little hope they'll find agreement with the players any time soon. Here's a link to an article from last February. I find what Jones said at a 2007 pre-season game in Minnesota very telling. http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Loss-of-NFL-revenue-sharing-would-hit-teams-like-Minnesota-Vikings-in-the-wallet-65948288 GO BILLS!!!
ddaryl Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 common sense says the reason for the leagues immense success is its socialistic model. everyone here knows what would happen if we let the league be a pure free market league...
Doc Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 I think you understood my point before you chose to mischaracterize it. The Cowboys have a lot of fans nationally. So do the pats. Both probably have more football fans who hate them. Either way, the prominence of these teams, along with the Steelers and Colts, are what drove up the public interest in the 90's and 00's. That interest drove up the bidding for the TV rights to view NFL football (see Fox's big push to televise NFC(E) games). Anyway, guys like Kraft were negotiating the latest contracts and their extensions. The addition of the lockout guarantee was a smart move (it doens't matter when it was included--it's good for any stoppage of play). Ah, I see. Every other team generated interest in the league but the 90's Bills, despite the exciting offense, Bruce Smith, SB appearances, Paup leading the league in sacks, the Flutie sideshow, etc. No wonder I call you superfan. The truth is, with the salary cap, every team has a shot in any given year, and that generates interest. It doesn't matter what teams are doing well; the big market teams will still draw the viewers, a hundred million people will still watch the SB, and TV money will continue to go up, like it does in every other major sport. Kraft was just riding the coattails of his forebears and the upstart Fox network. Name all the players on the Bills who got a "huge raise" in the aftermath of the 2006 CBA. We've been through this, doc--it never happened. You've already acknowledged this. Why dig up this tired canard? I gave you the numbers showing you how the league as a whole spent hundreds of millions more per season than could be accounted for alone by the increase in TV money. All you could do was continue to parrot "the money was going to go up anyway." But since you continue to dig up that canard, I'll ask again: if this was just a "paper raise" and the owners are making money hand-over-fist, why are they looking to get money back and willing to risk a lockout?
Recommended Posts