MMQB: CBA, Kyle Williams, SB for LA?...other stuff

Beerball · June 20, 2011

link

San Jose Bills Fan · June 20, 2011

I was sorry to read this in King's piece:

"The small-market teams could well be upset because -- from what I'm hearing -- not much will be done in the final deal to address the concerns of the bottom-revenue teams that have been trying to narrow the gap with the haves. This is a problem, frankly, I don't see getting fixed. Too many of the high-revenue teams think it's fine to share network TV and ticket money, but chafe at expanding revenue-sharing in a more global sense. It's a well-worn saw around the league that if Mike Brown wants his Bengals to be closer to the high-revenue teams, he should sell the naming rights to Paul Brown Stadium instead of keeping his dad's name on it. One league veteran told the revenue difference between rich and relative poor in the NFL "might be addressed, but is simply not going to get fixed in this deal.'' Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/peter_king/06/19/mmqb/index.html#ixzz1PpL5U1KO

K-9 · June 20, 2011

I was sorry to read this in King's piece:

"The small-market teams could well be upset because -- from what I'm hearing -- not much will be done in the final deal to address the concerns of the bottom-revenue teams that have been trying to narrow the gap with the haves. This is a problem, frankly, I don't see getting fixed. Too many of the high-revenue teams think it's fine to share network TV and ticket money, but chafe at expanding revenue-sharing in a more global sense. It's a well-worn saw around the league that if Mike Brown wants his Bengals to be closer to the high-revenue teams, he should sell the naming rights to Paul Brown Stadium instead of keeping his dad's name on it. One league veteran told the revenue difference between rich and relative poor in the NFL "might be addressed, but is simply not going to get fixed in this deal.'' Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/peter_king/06/19/mmqb/index.html#ixzz1PpL5U1KO

The last CBA negotiation was all about revenue sharing and it's no different this time. Before 2006, the players received a percentage of shared revenues only. In 2006 their share was tied to All revenues. No need to explain how that impacted bottom lines around the league.

Any chance the players would go back to a percentage of shared revenue only?

GO BILLS!!!

Malazan · June 20, 2011

Sounds like a band aid deal. Players should be taking an interest in this as it's one of the reasons why the league wants to revamp things.

hondo in seattle · June 20, 2011

Happy to read this in King's piece:

"Surprised at me having Kyle Williams 27 while the players, apparently, don't have him in the top 100? Watch some video of him. He consistently occupies two blockers. Always moving forward. A machine. I remember talking to Chan Gailey about him last year. This is a man who coached Emmitt Smith, Troy Aikman, Michael Irvin -- and I do believe I have never heard him rave about any player the way he raved to me about Williams."

K-9 · June 20, 2011

Happy to read this in King's piece:

"Surprised at me having Kyle Williams 27 while the players, apparently, don't have him in the top 100? Watch some video of him. He consistently occupies two blockers. Always moving forward. A machine. I remember talking to Chan Gailey about him last year. This is a man who coached Emmitt Smith, Troy Aikman, Michael Irvin -- and I do believe I have never heard him rave about any player the way he raved to me about Williams."

If only he could occupy three blockers. Then our LBs would be able to do their jobs.

GO BILLS!!!

billsfreak · June 20, 2011

Happy to read this in King's piece:

"Surprised at me having Kyle Williams 27 while the players, apparently, don't have him in the top 100? Watch some video of him. He consistently occupies two blockers. Always moving forward. A machine. I remember talking to Chan Gailey about him last year. This is a man who coached Emmitt Smith, Troy Aikman, Michael Irvin -- and I do believe I have never heard him rave about any player the way he raved to me about Williams."

Pretty sure that is the same Peter King who some people on this board rip from one end to the other every time he tells the truth about the Buffalo Bills.

Rubes · June 20, 2011

What, nobody complaining yet about how fat he is?

Mr. WEO · June 20, 2011

I was sorry to read this in King's piece:

"The small-market teams could well be upset because -- from what I'm hearing -- not much will be done in the final deal to address the concerns of the bottom-revenue teams that have been trying to narrow the gap with the haves. This is a problem, frankly, I don't see getting fixed. Too many of the high-revenue teams think it's fine to share network TV and ticket money, but chafe at expanding revenue-sharing in a more global sense. It's a well-worn saw around the league that if Mike Brown wants his Bengals to be closer to the high-revenue teams, he should sell the naming rights to Paul Brown Stadium instead of keeping his dad's name on it. One league veteran told the revenue difference between rich and relative poor in the NFL "might be addressed, but is simply not going to get fixed in this deal.'' Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/peter_king/06/19/mmqb/index.html#ixzz1PpL5U1KO

Luckily, the Bills don't find themselves a the bottom of the revenue list--they stay out of the last 5.

In truth, not much separates the middle 20 teams as far a revenue goes. Despite the increase in the cap brought on by the 2006 CBA, the Bills were still able to profit a ton. This makes Jerry Jones less interested in sharing his pile with guys like Brown and Ralph.

Van_phelaN1 · June 20, 2011

What, nobody complaining yet about how fat he is?

He could be made out of fat and inject hamburgers directly into his veins and I couldn't care less as long as he plays the way he does.

Rubes · June 20, 2011

He could be made out of fat and inject hamburgers directly into his veins and I couldn't care less as long as he plays the way he does.

Same here, but I was talking about Peter King.

K-9 · June 20, 2011

Luckily, the Bills don't find themselves a the bottom of the revenue list--they stay out of the last 5.

In truth, not much separates the middle 20 teams as far a revenue goes. Despite the increase in the cap brought on by the 2006 CBA, the Bills were still able to profit a ton. This makes Jerry Jones less interested in sharing his pile with guys like Brown and Ralph.

Jerry Jones "less" interested? He couldn't be "less" interested. He's never been interested in sharing revenues, AT ALL. Been that way since he filed suit against the NFL in '95.

The issue isn't that there is so little revenue difference among the middle 20 teams. The issue is that every time Jerral raises unshared revenues for himself he raises expenses for everyone else.

So Jerral's return on his Cowboys investment dwarfs RW's on the Bills, the Cowboys' generate nearly twice as much revenue, and Jerral is against revenue sharing. And people call Ralph cheap and greedy?

GO BILLS!!!

T master · June 20, 2011

I was sorry to read this in King's piece:

"The small-market teams could well be upset because -- from what I'm hearing -- not much will be done in the final deal to address the concerns of the bottom-revenue teams that have been trying to narrow the gap with the haves. This is a problem, frankly, I don't see getting fixed. Too many of the high-revenue teams think it's fine to share network TV and ticket money, but chafe at expanding revenue-sharing in a more global sense. It's a well-worn saw around the league that if Mike Brown wants his Bengals to be closer to the high-revenue teams, he should sell the naming rights to Paul Brown Stadium instead of keeping his dad's name on it. One league veteran told the revenue difference between rich and relative poor in the NFL "might be addressed, but is simply not going to get fixed in this deal.'' Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/peter_king/06/19/mmqb/index.html#ixzz1PpL5U1KO

It always worries me for our team when Jerry :censored: Jones is bending Goodells ear that's not a good thing . The guy is a slug & a greedy slug at that , that cares about nothing but him & his team & how to make more money for himself & his team .

Screw the rest of the NFL as long as his team can come out with the most money , the most wins & the most championships that's all he cares about .

It's owners like Jones :devil: that will screw up the NFL as we know it i can't stand the guy !!

DrDawkinstein · June 20, 2011

Jerry Jones "less" interested? He couldn't be "less" interested. He's never been interested in sharing revenues, AT ALL. Been that way since he filed suit against the NFL in '95.

The issue isn't that there is so little revenue difference among the middle 20 teams. The issue is that every time Jerral raises unshared revenues for himself he raises expenses for everyone else.

So Jerral's return on his Cowboys investment dwarfs RW's on the Bills, the Cowboys' generate nearly twice as much revenue, and Jerral is against revenue sharing. And people call Ralph cheap and greedy?

GO BILLS!!!

It always worries me for our team when Jerry Jones is bending Goodells ear that's not a good thing . The guy is a slug & a greedy slug at that , that cares about nothing but him & his team & how to make more money for himself & his team .

Screw the rest of the NFL as long as his team can come out with the most money , the most wins & the most championships that's all he cares about .

It's owners like Jones that will screw up the NFL as we know it i can't stand the guy !!

Serious questions as Im no expert when it comes to the finances of the NFL, so please bear with me:

The NFL gets a big chunk of change from TV. They split that up between the owners' take, and the players salary money. The money the owners get covers all(?)most(?) of their operating costs. The other goes to covering the player salaries.

It sounds like most of the expenses are already paid for by the NFL via TV money. Am I wrong?

It would also seem like the difference in profitability, and the revenues Jerry doesnt want to share, between the Bills and the Cowboys would be mostly things like jersey sales, ticket sales, etc. Am I wrong here?

ieatcrayonz · June 20, 2011

It always worries me for our team when Jerry Jones is bending Goodells ear that's not a good thing . The guy is a slug & a greedy slug at that , that cares about nothing but him & his team & how to make more money for himself & his team .

Screw the rest of the NFL as long as his team can come out with the most money , the most wins & the most championships that's all he cares about .

It's owners like Jones that will screw up the NFL as we know it i can't stand the guy !!

Don't leave out Bob Kraft whose company makes Capri Sun which you can't even drink without spilling some so you have to buy more.

cantankerous · June 21, 2011

If only he could occupy three blockers. Then our LBs would be able to do their jobs.

GO BILLS!!!

Lol, thanks I needed a laugh. That was good.

K-9 · June 21, 2011

Serious questions as Im no expert when it comes to the finances of the NFL, so please bear with me:

The NFL gets a big chunk of change from TV. They split that up between the owners' take, and the players salary money. The money the owners get covers all(?)most(?) of their operating costs. The other goes to covering the player salaries.

It sounds like most of the expenses are already paid for by the NFL via TV money. Am I wrong?

It would also seem like the difference in profitability, and the revenues Jerry doesnt want to share, between the Bills and the Cowboys would be mostly things like jersey sales, ticket sales, etc. Am I wrong here?

NFL TV revenues were approximately $4 billion last season while player costs were roughly $4.4 billion. The owners indeed share TV revenue equally among all teams.

TV revenues used to cover player costs but that isn't the case the last few seasons.

The biggest difference in revenue production capability is the construction of new stadiums in cities with the corporate and population demographics to support them. Ticket sales are split 60/40 to the home team but luxury suites, psls, and all other local revenues are excluded.

The problem is that the players get a percentage of ALL revenues, shared or unshared by owners, and this raises the player expenses for EVERY team, not just teams that can generate additional revenues. For example, if the Cowboys sell their stadium naming rights for $32 million, all 32 teams would have their player costs rise by 600k (60% of $1 million). Jerry gets his $32 million, nets $31 million, but everybody else PAYS an extra $600k to the players.

That's as simple an example I can think of. But there are hundreds of millions of unshared revenues. Do the math and it's easy to see why the small market teams that play in stadiums that can't be supported by superior demographics are resentful.

GO BILLS!!!

Lol, thanks I needed a laugh. That was good.

If you REALLY want a good laugh, just watch tape of our LB play last season.

GO BILLS!!!

Edited June 21, 2011 by K-9

DrDawkinstein · June 21, 2011

NFL TV revenues were approximately $4 billion last season while player costs were roughly $4.4 billion. The owners indeed share TV revenue equally among all teams.

TV revenues used to cover player costs but that isn't the case the last few seasons.

The biggest difference in revenue production capability is the construction of new stadiums in cities with the corporate and population demographics to support them. Ticket sales are split 60/40 to the home team but luxury suites, psls, and all other local revenues are excluded.

The problem is that the players get a percentage of ALL revenues, shared or unshared by owners, and this raises the player expenses for EVERY team, not just teams that can generate additional revenues. For example, if the Cowboys sell their stadium naming rights for $32 million, all 32 teams would have their player costs rise by 600k (60% of $1 million). Jerry gets his $32 million, nets $31 million, but everybody else PAYS an extra $600k to the players.

That's as simple an example I can think of. But there are hundreds of millions of unshared revenues. Do the math and it's easy to see why the small market teams that play in stadiums that can't be supported by superior demographics are resentful.

GO BILLS!!!

If you REALLY want a good laugh, just watch tape of our LB play last season.

GO BILLS!!!

Thanks for taking the time to type out that reply, K9.

Follow-up question: When you say "but everybody else PAYS an extra $600k to the players", pay them that extra $600k how? Is that added to the overall salary cap? In this example, Ralph pays $600k to the players how? That gets added to the revenue for next year's numbers?

K-9 · June 22, 2011

Thanks for taking the time to type out that reply, K9.

Follow-up question: When you say "but everybody else PAYS an extra $600k to the players", pay them that extra $600k how? Is that added to the overall salary cap? In this example, Ralph pays $600k to the players how? That gets added to the revenue for next year's numbers?

The cap and floor will rise accordingly the next season.

Before the last CBA it wasn't as much of an issue because salaries were tied to SHARED revenues only.

If you're a team in a market not supported by new, revenue generating stadiums and superior demographics, you won't be able to generate unshared revenues on the scale of those teams that are. But you still have to pay more in player costs because, again, those costs are tied to ALL revenues generated by every team in the league.

Hope that clears it up.

GO BILLS!!!

Edited June 22, 2011 by K-9

Sign In

MMQB: CBA, Kyle Williams, SB for LA?...other stuff

Recommended Posts

Beerball

San Jose Bills Fan

K-9

Malazan

hondo in seattle

K-9

billsfreak

Rubes

Mr. WEO

Van_phelaN1

Rubes

K-9

T master

DrDawkinstein

ieatcrayonz

cantankerous

K-9

DrDawkinstein

K-9

Browse

Activity