MadBuffaloDisease Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 If the NFL goes ahead with the salary cap based on total revenues without total revenue sharing, they'll kill the league. They're already seeing their future being hurt by youngsters who would rather watch wrestling, but making it an uneven playing field would only serve to drive fans in smaller markets who can't compete financially away from the sport. Anyone think the Sabres would have a larger following if they weren't handcuffed, financially? But the arsehole greedy owners only care about themselves and the present, future be damned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SF Bills Fan Posted May 23, 2005 Author Share Posted May 23, 2005 If the NFL goes ahead with the salary cap based on total revenues without total revenue sharing, they'll kill the league. They're already seeing their future being hurt by youngsters who would rather watch wrestling, but making it an uneven playing field would only serve to drive fans in smaller markets who can't compete financially away from the sport. Anyone think the Sabres would have a larger following if they weren't handcuffed, financially? But the arsehole greedy owners only care about themselves and the present, future be damned. 342817[/snapback] If the league goes down because of the lack of a salary cap, it will be becasue of Dan Snyder Bob McNair and some of the younger guys that have no concept of the fact that the league got as popoular as it did becuase Wellington Mara and some of the old school big market guys made sacrifices to allow it to survive and thrive. I wonder how Paul Allen feels about this situation? My guess is that he is a team player kind of guy and would do wha its best for the league. It's going to end up being a fight with Ralph and the old schoolers vs. Snyder and his gang. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 I've always thought that estate taxes are terrible. Why pay taxes on money that was already taxed? Bravo to Mr. Brown for his victory on that. 342738[/snapback] Generally, I'd agree. The Brown issue was about appreciation that was not previously taxed, though. If your or my business or house appreciated in value, you or I take the profit upon sale or transfer. and pay the tax We normally don't "lend" our house to a family friend prior to Daddy's death...I only go so far in defending our beloved multimilliniares, ya know. However, DON'T you paint me as a tax friend, SF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SF Bills Fan Posted May 23, 2005 Author Share Posted May 23, 2005 Generally, I'd agree. The Brown issue was about appreciation that was not previously taxed, though. If your or my business or house appreciated in value, you or I take the profit upon sale or transfer. and pay the tax We normally don't "lend" our house to a family friend prior to Daddy's death...I only go so far in defending our beloved multimilliniares, ya know. However, DON'T you paint me as a tax friend, SF. 342842[/snapback] No sweat, I'll not call you a friend of the IRS. Question for anyone that might know- didn't the Senate pass a bill to get rid of the estate tax? Where does this thing stand now? I know Bush is oppossed to estate taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemhoff Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 when you consider his franchise cost him $25k, and is now worth at least 1000 times that. 342715[/snapback] Did it really only cost RW 25K for the franchise? Brilliant! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SF Bills Fan Posted May 23, 2005 Author Share Posted May 23, 2005 Did it really only cost RW 25K for the franchise? Brilliant! 342903[/snapback] Yeah the old original AFL owners were labeled "The Foolish Club". Ha! look who got the last laugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 I wish I met him when I interned......Mr. Van Miller is a great guy......Murphy does a great job, but he has huge shoes to fill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SF Bills Fan Posted May 23, 2005 Author Share Posted May 23, 2005 I wish I met him when I interned......Mr. Van Miller is a great guy......Murphy does a great job, but he has huge shoes to fill. 342911[/snapback] Van was classic. Give Murph some time and he'll do alright. Is the Pill still his sidekick on air? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 OK, I'm hedonistic...but I hate the articles that talk about MY mortality. I'm already dead, for Christ's sake. Geeze. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 No sweat, I'll not call you a friend of the IRS. Question for anyone that might know- didn't the Senate pass a bill to get rid of the estate tax? Where does this thing stand now? I know Bush is oppossed to estate taxes. 342851[/snapback] I believe the rule was that property left to a spouse was entirely tax-free, the first 1.5 million in assets received was tax-free, and money over that was taxed at your normal income tax rate - so if for example you leave 13.5 million cash to your 3 kids, each would get 4.5 million or about 3.5 million after taxes. Fewer than 1% of the estates paid anything under the estate tax. There were several tricks to lower the rate like giving direct cash gifts each year and by 'generation skipping,' or leaving the estate to the grandkids, as well as actual tax tricks - those that pay anything only pay about 20% on average. Nevertheless this was seen as unfair to wealthy children, so the exemption was scheduled to rise to 6 million; meaning if you left 27 million to your three kids, they would each get 8 million after taxes instead of 6. Rather than raise the exemption as planned, under Bush the tax was dropped - no taxes on inherited wealth at all. This repeal was supposed to be temporary, with the tax coming back in 2011. However there is now a push to make the repeal permanent - I know the House approved it last month, but I don't think the Senate voted yet. Some data here: http://www.cbpp.org/5-25-00tax.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 If the league goes down because of the lack of a salary cap, it will be becasue of Dan Snyder Bob McNair and some of the younger guys that have no concept of the fact that the league got as popoular as it did becuase Wellington Mara and some of the old school big market guys made sacrifices to allow it to survive and thrive. I wonder how Paul Allen feels about this situation? My guess is that he is a team player kind of guy and would do wha its best for the league. It's going to end up being a fight with Ralph and the old schoolers vs. Snyder and his gang. 342824[/snapback] As much as I love the Bills, I see the reasoning behind "Snyder and his gang". And let me use the Redskins and the Bengals as an example. Dan Snyder gets $10 million a year from Fedex to name the Redskins stadium "Fedex Field". The Bengals ownership (Brown family) calls their stadium "Paul Brown Stadium" and refuses to sell the naming rights, calling it "tradition"; "history", etc. Under this "total revenue sharing" concept, Dan Snyder would have to give a portion of his "stadium name" money to the Bengals, but the Bengals would give zilch to Snyder. How would you feel if you were Snyder? "You" have to give money to "them", but "they" won't do what it takes to generate additional money to give to "you". In theory, the Brown family has the right to do what they are doing. But why should Snyder be penalized? If any of you were in Snyder's shoes, you would be bitching as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 As much as I love the Bills, I see the reasoning behind "Snyder and his gang". And let me use the Redskins and the Bengals as an example. Dan Snyder gets $10 million a year from Fedex to name the Redskins stadium "Fedex Field". The Bengals ownership (Brown family) calls their stadium "Paul Brown Stadium" and refuses to sell the naming rights, calling it "tradition"; "history", etc. Under this "total revenue sharing" concept, Dan Snyder would have to give a portion of his "stadium name" money to the Bengals, but the Bengals would give zilch to Snyder. How would you feel if you were Snyder? "You" have to give money to "them", but "they" won't do what it takes to generate additional money to give to "you". In theory, the Brown family has the right to do what they are doing. But why should Snyder be penalized? If any of you were in Snyder's shoes, you would be bitching as well. 344171[/snapback] Brown wasn't above selling the naming rights for Riverfront to the local power company, Cinergy. However, proving that extortion is lucrative, he now has a new stadium compliments of the idiot taxpayers in Hamilton County, OH, parking, concessions etc. - and now he is gracious enough to let his free place of business be named after his father. Mikey likes it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jad1 Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 As much as I love the Bills, I see the reasoning behind "Snyder and his gang". And let me use the Redskins and the Bengals as an example. Dan Snyder gets $10 million a year from Fedex to name the Redskins stadium "Fedex Field". The Bengals ownership (Brown family) calls their stadium "Paul Brown Stadium" and refuses to sell the naming rights, calling it "tradition"; "history", etc. Under this "total revenue sharing" concept, Dan Snyder would have to give a portion of his "stadium name" money to the Bengals, but the Bengals would give zilch to Snyder. How would you feel if you were Snyder? "You" have to give money to "them", but "they" won't do what it takes to generate additional money to give to "you". In theory, the Brown family has the right to do what they are doing. But why should Snyder be penalized? If any of you were in Snyder's shoes, you would be bitching as well. 344171[/snapback] This is a bit myopic. First off, Snyder would only be asked to give a portion of the naming rights to revenue sharing, not the whole thing, so he still is making money off the naming rights fee. Second, he owns an NFL team, not an MLS team. If he owned the latter, I doubt the fee he received for naming rights would be nearly as high. The value to the sponsor, FedEx, comes from being associated with the NFL, not just the Redskins. Third, FedEx bought the naming rights to advertise their company. They get wide exposure thanks to the television contracts negotiated by the league, not just Snyder. So when Monday Night Football broadcasts from FedEx field in D.C., FedEx can thank the NFL for the national exposure. An 80-20 split of these revenues, between the team and the league, is not unreasonable. It continues to generate a profit for the home team, and returns money to the organization that makes the high fees possible in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 This is a bit myopic. First off, Snyder would only be asked to give a portion of the naming rights to revenue sharing, not the whole thing, so he still is making money off the naming rights fee. Second, he owns an NFL team, not an MLS team. If he owned the latter, I doubt the fee he received for naming rights would be nearly as high. The value to the sponsor, FedEx, comes from being associated with the NFL, not just the Redskins. Third, FedEx bought the naming rights to advertise their company. They get wide exposure thanks to the television contracts negotiated by the league, not just Snyder. So when Monday Night Football broadcasts from FedEx field in D.C., FedEx can thank the NFL for the national exposure. An 80-20 split of these revenues, between the team and the league, is not unreasonable. It continues to generate a profit for the home team, and returns money to the organization that makes the high fees possible in the first place. 344273[/snapback] I tend to agree with DallasFan. Lets not forget ole Ralphy boy chose to name the joint after himself rather than taking naming fees. I also see the points of Snyder and McNair saying I valued this franchise at X assuming that these "non-football revunue" funds would be mine, now you want to change the rules mid stream. I know I wouldn't be happy either. But Ralph makes a great point when he says"wait a minute now, I paid into a fund to get new stadiums built, and the owner of that one team gets all the new revenue from said stadium, and that doean't sit to well with me" I also think Ralph put forth some type of proposal that would entail some guarantee that the small market teams would need to either prove they are trying to increse revenues and/or spend any additional monies on the product on the field. Tough call either way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 This is a bit myopic. First off, Snyder would only be asked to give a portion of the naming rights to revenue sharing, not the whole thing, so he still is making money off the naming rights fee. Second, he owns an NFL team, not an MLS team. If he owned the latter, I doubt the fee he received for naming rights would be nearly as high. The value to the sponsor, FedEx, comes from being associated with the NFL, not just the Redskins. Third, FedEx bought the naming rights to advertise their company. They get wide exposure thanks to the television contracts negotiated by the league, not just Snyder. So when Monday Night Football broadcasts from FedEx field in D.C., FedEx can thank the NFL for the national exposure. An 80-20 split of these revenues, between the team and the league, is not unreasonable. It continues to generate a profit for the home team, and returns money to the organization that makes the high fees possible in the first place. 344273[/snapback] A "portion"? With 32 teams, he would have to give away 31/32, or 97%. That's a lot more than a "portion." That's why they call it "revenue sharing". It ain't no theoretical 80/20 split. And that's why people like Jones and Snyder B word so much, because they believe that other teams aren't doing all that they can to "maximize revenues." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 A "portion"? With 32 teams, he would have to give away 31/32, or 97%. That's a lot more than a "portion." That's why they call it "revenue sharing". It ain't no theoretical 80/20 split. And that's why people like Jones and Snyder B word so much, because they believe that other teams aren't doing all that they can to "maximize revenues." I think a good start is to require all teams to sell naming rights to their stadium. Even though I'd rather keep the name Ralph Wilson Stadium, the reality is that the economics require selling the name to generate more money, and it's only fair IMHO. However if Synder, Jones, et al think they're so great at generating revenue for their teams, they should form a committee to do this for ALL the "lazy stragglers" because that would benefit everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 A "portion"? With 32 teams, he would have to give away 31/32, or 97%. That's a lot more than a "portion." That's why they call it "revenue sharing". It ain't no theoretical 80/20 split. And that's why people like Jones and Snyder B word so much, because they believe that other teams aren't doing all that they can to "maximize revenues." 344293[/snapback] I don't know how much the ticket prices vary around the league, but do you think this call for "maximizing revenue" could mean among other things, a rise in ticket prices for the clubs that now charge less? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 I don't know how much the ticket prices vary around the league, but do you think this call for "maximizing revenue" could mean among other things, a rise in ticket prices for the clubs that now charge less? 344304[/snapback] Buffal has I think the lowest average ticket price in the league. However, I do not think that is a major issue, it is the other issues such as PSls, club seats, etc. Let me give you an example. To keep certain decent seats at FEDEX(non club) Snyder makes you fork over $20 dollars for an official Redskins tailgate at every home game. Nice tailgate too, hot dogs, chips, and sodas with some scrub band playing, no beers. If you do not pay, maybe your seats go away next year. Thats the kind of BS that Ralph knows he could never pull in Buffalo, but Danny boy says is great and aggresive marketing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalkie Gerzowski Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 Bethlehem Steel Stadium Place some iron girders on top of the scoreboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 WTF I can't understand is what was so wrong with the current agreement that they have to go and renegotiate everything... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts