Mr. WEO Posted July 24, 2011 Posted July 24, 2011 Sharing 10% seems like a concession, but I have a feeling that the floodgates are about to open on the local revenue. I think that guys like JJ and Kraft have been holding back a bit on some of their local revenue potential in anticipation of the moment when they could get a hard and fast number in place of how much they would need to share to keep the other owners quiet. What I mean is that they may have been intentionally underproducing to get the small market owners to bite on 10% instead of demanding closer to half. This kind of crooked dealing is consistent with how JJ and Kraft have done business. Additionally, a team like the Giants, who have traditionally "done the right thing" for the league now no longer has to stand up for the cause of small markets, and in fact will be hurting themselves by NOT maximizing local revenue. In short, 10% is better than nothing but keep in mind that 50% would STILL give the big market teams a huge advantage because that other 50% would have to be split evenly among the bottom feeders while the big market would keep half of their local pie to themselves. Why on earth would any owner not maximize all revenue whenever they could? To keep the welfare number down? No way. You make money when it's there to make. Kraft has been a solid supporter of revenue sharing for low producers since he became an owner. Not sure what "crooked dealing" on this issue you are referring to. Enlighten please. The last CBA was quite generous, offering a $500 million revenue (from high producers) pool to share. That would require $5 billion of extra revenue to be made to made under the new CBA--so it's hard to claim this CBA is "better" in revenue sharing than the last one. You can thank Ralph, doc, but he nothing to do with this.
Scrappy Posted July 24, 2011 Posted July 24, 2011 Welfare for Buffalo, pity we can't have the team make a viable business plan with millions of people within a reasonable distance.
Doc Posted July 25, 2011 Posted July 25, 2011 Why on earth would any owner not maximize all revenue whenever they could? To keep the welfare number down? No way. You make money when it's there to make. Kraft has been a solid supporter of revenue sharing for low producers since he became an owner. Not sure what "crooked dealing" on this issue you are referring to. Enlighten please. The last CBA was quite generous, offering a $500 million revenue (from high producers) pool to share. That would require $5 billion of extra revenue to be made to made under the new CBA--so it's hard to claim this CBA is "better" in revenue sharing than the last one. Wayne Weaver wasn't happy with the revenue sharing in the last CBA, but was happy with this one. As were all of the other lower revenue team owners. That should tell you something. You can thank Ralph, doc, but he nothing to do with this. KtFaBD already refuted this claim in the other thread on revenue sharing (where he also refuted your claim that the owners knew what they were doing with the 2006 CBA). But here it is again: NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said Thursday night that the new deal does include a supplemental-revenue sharing system. A supplemental revenue system, aimed at helping lower-revenue teams, was added to the previous deal only after intense lobbying by Bills owner Ralph C. Wilson Jr. ---Mark Gaughan Not to mention Ralph was on the committee that worked on the revenue sharing plan from the 2006 CBA.
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted July 25, 2011 Posted July 25, 2011 I don't follow the Cowboys, so I don't claim to know Jerry Jones' current thinking. He must have voted for the currently proposed new CBA, but in 2009 he made some fairly strong anti-supplemental revenue sharing statements. http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2009/09/Issue-244/Leagues-Governing-Bodies/Jones-Says-NFL-Revenue-Sharing-Will-End-When-CBA-Expires.aspx
Doc Posted July 25, 2011 Posted July 25, 2011 I don't follow the Cowboys, so I don't claim to know Jerry Jones' current thinking. He must have voted for the currently proposed new CBA, but in 2009 he made some fairly strong anti-supplemental revenue sharing statements. http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2009/09/Issue-244/Leagues-Governing-Bodies/Jones-Says-NFL-Revenue-Sharing-Will-End-When-CBA-Expires.aspx Yes he did. Looks like the owners told him where to go after that 2006 CBA.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 25, 2011 Posted July 25, 2011 Revenue sharing has been in existence for many years. It was present in the last CBA--at the insistence of the union. Revenue sharing is the foundation of the NFL and the inarguable reason for its financial success. It started in the early 60s when Pete Rozelle got the teams together and convinced the big city owners to share most everything equally. The big city owners decided to take less of the pie for the better of the whole and the league. Then Rozelle convinced congress of the anti-trust so they could negotiate a collective national TV contract instead of each team selling their rights individually. It worked brilliantly. Teams were allowed to keep their concessions and parking and Pro Shop sales. There was no thing as luxury boxes, and most of the teams made similar amounts of money, especially with the 60-40 split of ticket sales to the home and away team. I think, but not positive, the first huge money luxury suites were made by the owner of the Cowboys, Clint Murchison, for Texas Stadium in 1971. That was the start of the disparity. The other big change was Jerry Jones, obviously also of the Cowboys, who decided he didn't want to share sponsorships with the smaller cities and made local deals. The NFL and the Cowboys sued each other and Jones won. Revenue Sharing has been around since the Bills existed, but the big city owners are ruining it because they are not willing to follow the idea of everyone shares, which made the NFL what it is today.
K-9 Posted July 25, 2011 Posted July 25, 2011 Revenue sharing is the foundation of the NFL and the inarguable reason for its financial success. It started in the early 60s when Pete Rozelle got the teams together and convinced the big city owners to share most everything equally. The big city owners decided to take less of the pie for the better of the whole and the league. Then Rozelle convinced congress of the anti-trust so they could negotiate a collective national TV contract instead of each team selling their rights individually. It worked brilliantly. Teams were allowed to keep their concessions and parking and Pro Shop sales. There was no thing as luxury boxes, and most of the teams made similar amounts of money, especially with the 60-40 split of ticket sales to the home and away team. I think, but not positive, the first huge money luxury suites were made by the owner of the Cowboys, Clint Murchison, for Texas Stadium in 1971. That was the start of the disparity. The other big change was Jerry Jones, obviously also of the Cowboys, who decided he didn't want to share sponsorships with the smaller cities and made local deals. The NFL and the Cowboys sued each other and Jones won. Revenue Sharing has been around since the Bills existed, but the big city owners are ruining it because they are not willing to follow the idea of everyone shares, which made the NFL what it is today. Good points, all. It's worth noting that the disparity in revenues didn't become a huge concern until the '06 CBA. For the first time the cap was tied to ALL revenues, both shared and unshared. It's one thing for some teams to have access to all sorts of unshared local revenue streams. It's quite another when EVERY team sees it's player costs go up as a result. When some teams spend 30% of revenues on player costs while others need to spend 65%, an unsustainable business model is created. This was what RW was trying to get across in '06 and what most of the owners came to realize later on. GO BILLS!!!
Mr. WEO Posted July 25, 2011 Posted July 25, 2011 Wayne Weaver wasn't happy with the revenue sharing in the last CBA, but was happy with this one. As were all of the other lower revenue team owners. That should tell you something. KtFaBD already refuted this claim in the other thread on revenue sharing (where he also refuted your claim that the owners knew what they were doing with the 2006 CBA). But here it is again: Not to mention Ralph was on the committee that worked on the revenue sharing plan from the 2006 CBA. Again, under the new CBA, the extra income pool would have to be more than 5 billion to equal the supplimental income pool of the last CBA. KFBD posted a Mark Gaughan (the guy you have mocked many times for his "sell to the highest bidder") quote that mentioned RW's involvement in the last CBA. So now you say that RW was instrumental in the evolution of the revenue sharing component of the last CBA, while at the same time claiming he didn't understand the details of it. Look, revenue sharing was put in the 06 CBA at the insistence of Upshaw. There was no report a that time otherwise.
HalftimeAdjustment Posted July 25, 2011 Posted July 25, 2011 You said it better than I could have. It's def not the capitalist way. But it will keep the lower revenue teams relevant and therefor supply the league with a good number of teams to sustain it's existence. Overall I'm not a fan of propping up a business long term if it can't stay above water on it's own merits. As a contract voluntarily entered into by the parties, and voted to approve by 31 out of 32 of the participating franchises, I would say it is definitely the capitalist way. Without other teams to play football, each team's profit will be minimized. The teams do not compete like traditional businesses, since a game cannot be played without at least 2 teams and a small league (of say 8-16 teams) would likely have fewer fans - even in the big markets. Therefore the teams are seeking a mutually beneficial arrangement to maximize their profits. Whether the loss of 10% of the local revenue is offset by these factors is a judgement for the team to make, and since they voted for it, I assume that the positives outweigh the negatives in some way.
Doc Posted July 25, 2011 Posted July 25, 2011 Again, under the new CBA, the extra income pool would have to be more than 5 billion to equal the supplimental income pool of the last CBA. KFBD posted a Mark Gaughan (the guy you have mocked many times for his "sell to the highest bidder") quote that mentioned RW's involvement in the last CBA. So now you say that RW was instrumental in the evolution of the revenue sharing component of the last CBA, while at the same time claiming he didn't understand the details of it. Look, revenue sharing was put in the 06 CBA at the insistence of Upshaw. There was no report a that time otherwise. The quote by Gaughan (sorry but I can't take a guy seriously who says he doesn't know Ralph's succession plan...but that it's to "sell to the highest bidder") was about revenue sharing this time. And again, the revenue sharing details weren't defined when the owners hastily (and mistakenly, according to Giants' owner John Mara, which I know you saw) voted for the 2006 CBA. Obviously the additional revenue sharing arrangement this time around is more favorable, seeing as how Ralph voted for it whereas he didn't vote for it initially last time. In addition to Wayne Weaver also saying it's better.
Mr. WEO Posted July 25, 2011 Posted July 25, 2011 (edited) The quote by Gaughan (sorry but I can't take a guy seriously who says he doesn't know Ralph's succession plan...but that it's to "sell to the highest bidder") was about revenue sharing this time. And again, the revenue sharing details weren't defined when the owners hastily (and mistakenly, according to Giants' owner John Mara, which I know you saw) voted for the 2006 CBA. Obviously the additional revenue sharing arrangement this time around is more favorable, seeing as how Ralph voted for it whereas he didn't vote for it initially last time. In addition to Wayne Weaver also saying it's better. Ralph voted against the revenue sharing last time because he wouldn't qualified for it, or thought he wouldn't. He was ready to deny it to those who qualified. I mention the Mara's claim of temporary insanity in another post. Edited July 25, 2011 by Mr. WEO
FLFan Posted July 25, 2011 Posted July 25, 2011 Actually this is quite capitalistic. It's not unusual for a big company to maintain a presence in a market even when that presence costs them money. For example, NFL Europe survived for several years, despite huge losses, because the NFL hoped to build a fan base in Europe that would eventually create another revenue stream. Jerry Jones supports helping smaller market teams simply because it's in his best financial interest to do so. By maintaining franchises in a selection of cities (and not only in mega-cities), the NFL maintains itself as a national brand with widespread relevance. Agreed, and in fact, monopoly is the ultimate goal of any capitalist enterprise in its purest form. The NFL is a monopoly, protected by the Government as such. In order to maintain that monopoly and keep the busines growing they must ensure that all members of the monoploy are able to survive and thrive. This benefits all the members.
OCinBuffalo Posted July 25, 2011 Posted July 25, 2011 (edited) 1. The NFL has has nothing, I repeat, nothing in common with either the real world, or, normal business practice. Therefore, all comparisons based on it, all conclusions drawn from it are, by definition, patently retarded. People like Bill Maher, who attempt to prove things in the real world using the NFL, are also, patently retarded. 2. Specifically, a number of fundamental conditions that all real world businesses face have been removed, or modified, and unique, non-real world conditions have been added. 3. Instead of competing to eventually destroy the competition, like we do in the real world, the NFL's goal is to ensure endless competition. Jerry Jones would lose his F'ing shirt, and so would Kraft, Dan Synder and every other big market team, if football was run like baseball. There aren't enough games in football, to spread the risk. Think about it: who's going to pay $2k to see the 1-15 Dolphins from a few years ago play...anywhere? You might be willing to pay Ralph's prices, you aren't willing to pay Jerry's. For the uninitiated, this is called tensile strength, and what it means is: Jerry better make damn sure he delivers quality on both sides of the ball, at each and every game or his costs will overtake him quickly. Ralph has a bit more leeway, (as we have seen ), but ultimately, they both must ensure that the outcome of every game is uncertain. The only way to do that, is to make sure the refs are right, and that both sides have an opportunity to put = skill on the field. Therefore, for those of you(as I already see some of the usual idiots in this thread) warming up to make the "Seeee....capitalism bad"...point, understand that I have already explained above why drawing that conclusion is patently retarded. Do yourself a favor and avoid proving that you are patently retarded as well. If anything, the NFL is yet another example of this fundamental truth: socialism works when applied to every world...but the real one. Edited July 25, 2011 by OCinBuffalo
Doc Posted July 25, 2011 Posted July 25, 2011 Ralph voted against the revenue sharing last time because he wouldn't qualified for it, or thought he wouldn't. He was ready to deny it to those who qualified. Huh? He voted against the CBA, which talked about ill-defined additional revenue sharing. Once additional revenue sharing was defined, he voted for the CBA. And instead of waiting for "charity," he went out and "put one over" on Toronto, so he didn't need it. I mention the Mara's claim of temporary insanity in another post. LOL at "temporary insanity." Well, at least it beats permanent insanity.
Homey D. Clown Posted July 25, 2011 Posted July 25, 2011 Something that comes to mind when i think of the NFL's ownership structure is how similar in concept it is to buying into a franchise, like Subway or a Firestone tire center. Except Firestone has been moving away from the independent owner structure, and more towards corporate ownership. As a corporation, tire centers can share the profits of those stores that are blessed with a great location, but remain in other areas that can use a store, but not necessarily support the location independently. This is a good thing overall for the success of Firestone as a whole, since they can be located in areas that would normally not be able to support it, but still have the market presence and still bring in money to the corporation. This allows the bottom line(overall profit) to be the main factor, while servicing areas that could still use it's product. The NFL is a far more lucrative venture, and could literally support a team anywhere collectively, and that's what I think the league should be all about. I don't agree that teams should only be located in large markets, it then becomes an exclusive membership, or elitist club, and to me that goes against what the sport was initially intended for, the fans. Does it suck for the Jerry Jones' of the league, sort of, but to ensure the overall success of the league is really what they should focus on, something Ralph did for his beloved AFL buddies in the early days.
justnzane Posted July 25, 2011 Posted July 25, 2011 You said it before I could. I know what the recent Supreme Court ruling said, and I also know that the reality is that it's one business, albeit one with franchises that compete against one another. Also, anyone who is against revenue sharing should take a serious look at MLB and the English Premier League. Is that what we want? Honestly, it is the capitalist version of sports. I like the whole notion of watching teams get relegated if they suck or can't operate within normal financial guidelines. That said, baseball would be more entertaining if the top 2 AAA teams could be promoted while the worst teams in the AL and NL got relegated. Also, many European soccer squads have folded/moved/drop down a couple tiers over the years due to poor financial management (ex. Wimbledon FC and Leeds United)
Malazan Posted July 25, 2011 Posted July 25, 2011 So trickle down economics didn't work in the NFL? Amazing, it's doing so well everywhere else..
Recommended Posts