HARCO186 Posted February 15, 2011 Posted February 15, 2011 What Jerry Jones and some big time NFL rich boys must know is that the NFL is out pricing itself. Baseball took a huge hit when they locked out the players, and it hurt most of them. Some teams just kept on going like the yankees. The NFL has one huge disadvantage is that their season is very short in actual games being played. The NFL wants bigger markets but they will not be able to compete with each other before long. It may take 15 years for this to happen, but it will happen eventually. I know if the NFL becomes anything like baseball, I will no longer watch because one doesn't like to watch just one team win week after week. If the Bills ever left Buffalo, then I would be finished watching them. If teams keep moving to bigger markets they only have so many places to go in order to be competitive, which then the fan base will shrink because the loyalty of one team will be gone. It will be soon that many teams will be nothing more than just advertisements on jerseys and sponsored by big names like nike and under armor. Remember how dallas got dion sanders there? That idiot owner paid pizza hut to make commercials so he wouldn't go over the salary cap. That still happens today in my book, but will be the downfall of the nfl until the fans start saying enough is enough. This whole thing is the fans fault in a big way for not saying something and doing something about it. That is why I like cities like jacksonville to give it to the nfl. Why pay huge amounts of money for a nfl team when they several collages to go see. The market will not let the nfl expand too much more because who will sponsor it or pay for it?
billsfreak Posted February 15, 2011 Posted February 15, 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 !!!! Relax and take your meds. Jerry Jones is a maniacal egomaniac with a ton of money for sure, but you can't blame that horrendous half time show on him, that was all the NFL. Jones being greedy and one of a kind is nothing new, years ago he was at odds with all of the other owners and the NFL for going out and getting his own sponsorship deals separate from the rest of the NFL. Soccer far and away is the worlds most popular sport. I don't believe there is even a close second. It's not about winning superbowls or even having a good team. It is about economics. Smaller market equals less money. Not saying I like or you should like it, but our not liking it does not change the facts. You are correct in that Soccer is the most popular sport in the world, by a large margin, but not in this country. In this country it comes in right below hopscotch and tiddlywinks.
NoSaint Posted February 15, 2011 Posted February 15, 2011 Relax and take your meds. Jerry Jones is a maniacal egomaniac with a ton of money for sure, but you can't blame that horrendous half time show on him, that was all the NFL. Jones being greedy and one of a kind is nothing new, years ago he was at odds with all of the other owners and the NFL for going out and getting his own sponsorship deals separate from the rest of the NFL. jones daughter ran the halftime show, if i recall.
Bills(70) Posted February 15, 2011 Posted February 15, 2011 One of the "freeloaders" just beat another "freeloader" in the Superbowl. 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.
Turbosrrgood Posted February 15, 2011 Posted February 15, 2011 (edited) 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 !! I don't know if I would call Wilson and Brown the "smarter owners". As much as I love the Bills, outside of the early 90's most of their teams have been pretty bad. A lot of that had to do with very poor management decisions, and promoting Ralph's "friends" to lead football operations. And the Bengals, well they are the Bengals. They voted how they did, because they are the smallest market teams and would be negatively effected by the new agreement. which besides the teams & the play in this years SB was the suckiest SB in resent history I guess I don't get it...besides the teams and the play? Isn't THAT the super bowl? It was great in my opinion. !! The Black Eyed Peas -- PLEASE WHAT A S**T HALF TIME SHOW) I'll agree with you here, that show was awful. But SB shows never really entertained me anyway, I watch for the football... Edited February 15, 2011 by Turbosrrgood
Scraps Posted February 15, 2011 Posted February 15, 2011 Soccer far and away is the worlds most popular sport. I don't believe there is even a close second. Technically true but pretty irrelevant since we are talking about a US market.
yungmack Posted February 15, 2011 Posted February 15, 2011 The concept of revenue share began in the AFL (along with the emphasis on the passing game, the two-point conversion, the soccer-style kickers, opening the door to all black players, and on and on). And the first major source of that revenue was television. For all you young 'uns who diss Ralph for being out of touch because he has been rude enough to continue living, he was a key mover in both the television deal making AND in the concept of revenue sharing (not to mention helping to finance the Boston and Oakland franchises). I seem to remember also that the AFL pioneered the concept of full Sunday coverage of football through a national TV deal. Prior to that, the NFL teams had their own individual deals. In Buffalo, that meant the only NFL game we got was the Browns. We were lucky that the Browns were without a doubt the greatest team in the 50s and maybe in the history of the NFL, though you'd never know it by the way the present NFL overlooks that team. Probably because it wasn't an original NFL team but was brought in when the AAFC folded, then proceeded to beat the stuffing out of the "better quality" NFL teams. One other thing, if the NFL really wanted to shed its smaller markets, that would mean getting rid of around 10 teams by my count. Aside from Los Angeles, where exactly would those 10 teams relocate to that are substantially larger than the cities left behind? The only solution I can imagine is expansion to other countries, to Toronto, Vancouver, Monterrey and Mexico City (the NFL is hugely popular in Mexico, particularly in the north). Possibly London and Berlin? In the US, other than LA, about the only places I can think of that are even marginally possible are San Antonio and Las Vegas.
Beerball Posted February 15, 2011 Posted February 15, 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. Made me LOL. Would you like the World Series champion to take on the world as well?
Doc Posted February 15, 2011 Posted February 15, 2011 How is Buffalo getting "boned"? Ralph voted against the most massive increase (500%) in revenue sharing money in CBA history (lucky for him, he was outvoted). Poster who say Jones, Kraft, etc are "ruining the league obviously don't comprehend that the (free) money for "revenue sharing" comes mainly from the TV contracts that guys like Kraft negotiated on everyone's behalf---AND, that the value of those contracts comes from the national appeal of teams like the Cowboys, pats, Steelers, Redskins--not form the Bills. Like them or not--those owners have popular brands that they sink tons of money into. They all see Ralph simply ounting his money while bithcing at THEM for being stupid or greedy. Kraft had little to do with the TV money, other than being the warm body who shook hands with another warm body. The NFL sold itself and the TV money increased exponentially once Fox entered the fray and created a scarcity for the NFL product. As for the popularity, the original CBA (that had NO input from Kraft, Snyder and Jones) created a more level playing field and more interest among fans, in a sport that was already gaining popularity among its professional league peers. These guys just rode the coattails of the guys who preceeded them, and "sunk tons of money" into stadiums which increase revenue for mostly themselves, while pricing out the average family that made the league what it was. The last CBA is being shown for what it was: a bad deal. We'll see how things turn out this time.
BillnutinHouston Posted February 15, 2011 Posted February 15, 2011 It must burn Jone's ass to know that Wilson has no debt on his stadium, plays in it rent free, has an annual stipen for wear & tear expenses & gets to keep all the concession money/parking. Great point.
Beerball Posted February 15, 2011 Posted February 15, 2011 I didn't see that Feely's exact words were quoted anywhere above, sorry if I missed them. Here's what he said: "All the fans care about is watching football," said Feely. "They don't want to hear us bickering. If I took out a lot of lawyers, I could get a deal done tomorrow. Jerry Jones doesn't want to share with the Buffalo Bills anymore. You have this disconnect between the owners. They want to take back from the players. That's their answer right now. Their answer is, 'We have leverage. We're going to assert that leverage and fix our problem that we can't settle between ourselves.'" he also confirms Richardson talking down to Manning/Brees
CodeMonkey Posted February 15, 2011 Posted February 15, 2011 You are correct in that Soccer is the most popular sport in the world, by a large margin, but not in this country. In this country it comes in right below hopscotch and tiddlywinks. Technically true but pretty irrelevant since we are talking about a US market. I agree with both of you guys. But the original quote was "most popular sport anywhere" and I was just pointing out that the statement, as made, is simply not true. "most popular sport anywhere in the United States" no argument from me.
Doc Posted February 15, 2011 Posted February 15, 2011 Great point. Except that Jerruh had the exact same situation before building Jerruh World.
T master Posted February 15, 2011 Author Posted February 15, 2011 That makes no sense. Ralph's investment is smaller because he did it over 50 years ago. How are they a free loader? Every team gets the same amount of TV money, including Packers , Pitt, Detroit and every other small market team. Giants, Jets, Cowboys...do not have to share any revenue from boxes/ suites. Jones chose to spend $1B on his new stadium. Let him figure out how to pay for it. AMEN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's "renege" not "renig," racist. NOT RACIST JUST ILLITERATE !!
All_Pro_Bills Posted February 15, 2011 Posted February 15, 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. True the Packers are 'publicly' owned but the shares cannot be traded and are priced at a constant rate. I recall seeing it was $200 per share whatever that comes out to in market capitalization I don't know. I always suspected the reason the NFL would not allow teams to become publicly traded entities is because that would require them to file SEC disclosure and reporting documents. So that would publicly reveal the true revenue and profit numbers for the team. From what I've seen revenue/profit figures for each team are forensically produced by various fiancial (like Forbes) and sports media but not provided directly by the league or the teams. Management/Ownership guards this information closely and certainly doesn't want the players union to know the true and exact financial state of each franchise, much less the public. If the public found out the true profit level of these teams you'd probably see extreme levels of pushback when it comes to publicly financing stadiums and sweetheart revenue deals. Taxpayers would know for sure how they're gettng ripped off by rich owners. Given these are 'private' companies or sole proprietor owned they are under no obligation to disclose their finances to anyone other than the IRS. And private tax filing statements, like you and I file, are not publicly disclosed by the agency. That said, I'd hate to see the NFL go the way of MLB. Every year you've got the Yankees and a couple other teams out trying to buy the world series in the offseason with the rest of the teams just along for the ride. How anyone can be a Pirates or Royals fan (plus several other teams) is something I can't figure.
Mr. WEO Posted February 15, 2011 Posted February 15, 2011 Kraft had little to do with the TV money, other than being the warm body who shook hands with another warm body. The NFL sold itself and the TV money increased exponentially once Fox entered the fray and created a scarcity for the NFL product. As for the popularity, the original CBA (that had NO input from Kraft, Snyder and Jones) created a more level playing field and more interest among fans, in a sport that was already gaining popularity among its professional league peers. These guys just rode the coattails of the guys who preceeded them, and "sunk tons of money" into stadiums which increase revenue for mostly themselves, while pricing out the average family that made the league what it was. The last CBA is being shown for what it was: a bad deal. We'll see how things turn out this time. Sure, the networks just lined up with blank checks for Kraft and the boys to sign (and RE-sign in 2009 as extensions). Your penchant for revising history is well documented on these pages and has been pointed out by others than myself. The money payed for televising these games before Kraft and Jones was nothing like it is now-even accounting for inflation. Since Jones bought the Cowboys and Kraft the pats (and the 6 SB they won since), the value of the contracts has gone from $470 million a year to 3.1 billion per year--that added value didn't come from watching Marv Levy coach 4 consecutive teams to SB losses. You see, that's increased revenue for every owner. The shared revenue is over $120 million per year per team--that's hardly "for mostly themselves". And while Kraft (and others) were squeezing more billions out of the networks, he was smart enough to purchase lockout insurance--a move which the less swift NFLPA just lost $8 million litigating over. Kraft has done a lot for this league, look it up. Ralph hasn't done anything for this league in 30 years. His voting against the last CBA was an example of him voting against his best interests (more welfare if his record profits were to drop) as has been shown (and you haven't cogently disputed that that CBA was a no lose proposition for Ralph).
Geno Smith's Arm Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 I agree with both of you guys. But the original quote was "most popular sport anywhere" and I was just pointing out that the statement, as made, is simply not true. "most popular sport anywhere in the United States" no argument from me. You're a real stickler. Love it when someone bogs down a discussion with complaints like this.
Doc Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 (edited) Sure, the networks just lined up with blank checks for Kraft and the boys to sign (and RE-sign in 2009 as extensions). Your penchant for revising history is well documented on these pages and has been pointed out by others than myself. The money payed for televising these games before Kraft and Jones was nothing like it is now-even accounting for inflation. Since Jones bought the Cowboys and Kraft the pats (and the 6 SB they won since), the value of the contracts has gone from $470 million a year to 3.1 billion per year--that added value didn't come from watching Marv Levy coach 4 consecutive teams to SB losses. You see, that's increased revenue for every owner. The shared revenue is over $120 million per year per team--that's hardly "for mostly themselves". And while Kraft (and others) were squeezing more billions out of the networks, he was smart enough to purchase lockout insurance--a move which the less swift NFLPA just lost $8 million litigating over. Kraft has done a lot for this league, look it up. Ralph hasn't done anything for this league in 30 years. His voting against the last CBA was an example of him voting against his best interests (more welfare if his record profits were to drop) as has been shown (and you haven't cogently disputed that that CBA was a no lose proposition for Ralph). 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. Edited February 16, 2011 by Doc
SACTOBILLSFAN 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. Yes soccer may be more popular but common soccer fan doesn't have the spending ability of the football watching public in America. It's simple economics.
CodeMonkey Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 (edited) You're a real stickler. Love it when someone bogs down a discussion with complaints like this. Or wastes time complaining about it? Yes soccer may be more popular but common soccer fan doesn't have the spending ability of the football watching public in America. It's simple economics. I would agree. What other sport anywhere can afford to pay it's players so much money for so few games played. Edited February 16, 2011 by CodeMonkey
Recommended Posts