Lurker Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 I understand your point, but Buffalo built a perennial Super Bowl team when there was no salary cap (cap didn't kick in until '93-'94). What's different now that they can't do that again? 606273[/snapback] First off, you can't keep teams together as long any more under the cap. GM's all have to be on three-year plans, knowing that star player contracts that are heavily back-loaded will eventually force these guys to be let go sooner than one would like. Also, with so much $$$ going to fewer players, it's hard to develop a deep group of top-notch roll player that really make a team solid in all phases of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Snyder and these other arrogant, ignorant "new wave" of owners have no clue. It's the same mindset that brought baseball to it's present low state. They think that the sport is invincible and that it's their "right" to make as much money as they can grab. What they don't understand is that they're a part of a private league that has significant antitrust exemptions, and that they have an obligation to act in a manner that benefits the league as a whole. However often the rest of the country pokes fun at Ralph, this is the one concept that Ralph understands completely. This is a group of people that joined together initially for the love of the sport, and it's this core concept that made the league into the greatest professional sports league in the world. Years of teamwork and doing what is good for the league as a whole made the league into what it is today. It's sad to think that some shallow !@#$stick like Dan Snyder or Jerry Jones is actually a threat to that. An uncapped league will spell disaster for the sport and teams like the Bills, Browns, Packers, and Raiders will disappear. 606082[/snapback] There's more to this than meets the eye. Yes, the new wave of owners that want disproportionate revenue sharing and it's probably not good for the sport in the long term. But from their standpoint, the economics are a bit different. I hate Dan Snyder as much as the next guy, but I also see his point that while NFL embraces revenue sharing, the cost structure is not spread evenly. Snyder paid $800 mil, or so for the team AND the stadium. J Jones owns the team and the stadium. Kraft owns the team and the stadium. Compare that to someone like Wilson, who bought the team for $25K and gets a free ride on the county & state spending on the stadium. So while the revenue economics are split, the costs aren't. Those are the new owners' gripes, and usually doesn't make it into the headlines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webster Guy Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 What they don't understand is that they're a part of a private league that has significant antitrust exemptions, and that they have an obligation to act in a manner that benefits the league as a whole. 606082[/snapback] I was under the impression that the NFL had NO antitrust exemptions, but you say they have "significant antitrust exemptions". What exemptions do they have? They were found guilty of anti-trust violations in their case against the USFL. I know they weren't exempt then- what has changed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 There's more to this than meets the eye. Yes, the new wave of owners that want disproportionate revenue sharing and it's probably not good for the sport in the long term. But from their standpoint, the economics are a bit different. I hate Dan Snyder as much as the next guy, but I also see his point that while NFL embraces revenue sharing, the cost structure is not spread evenly. Snyder paid $800 mil, or so for the team AND the stadium. J Jones owns the team and the stadium. Kraft owns the team and the stadium. Compare that to someone like Wilson, who bought the team for $25K and gets a free ride on the county & state spending on the stadium. So while the revenue economics are split, the costs aren't. Those are the new owners' gripes, and usually doesn't make it into the headlines. 606383[/snapback] My answer to that is so what? Their investment will never go down. They could sell their team and stadium tomorrow for $100 million profit (actually much more). It is no one's fault but their own that they didn't get in on the ground floor like Wilson and some of the others. It would be different if there was a bigger gamble but there is not. It's impossible to lose money in the NFL and there are always willing buyers. These guys want to mess with the one thing that allowed them the luxury of not at all risking any cent of their investment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 My answer to that is so what? Their investment will never go down. They could sell their team and stadium tomorrow for $100 million profit (actually much more). It is no one's fault but their own that they didn't get in on the ground floor like Wilson and some of the others. It would be different if there was a bigger gamble but there is not. It's impossible to lose money in the NFL and there are always willing buyers. These guys want to mess with the one thing that allowed them the luxury of not at all risking any cent of their investment. 606394[/snapback] You are correct...as long as the current revune-sharing/salary cap structure continues to exsist (and perhaps, even if it doesn't). The new guys are trying to change the VERY SUCCESSFUL system that made their teams so valuable in the first place. Also, isn't owning the stadium a GOOD thing? To Exiled: In order to be consistant with your totally free market approach I think you must also realize the draft HAS to go. (TOTALLY socialist) There can be NO mandated cap on salaries and there MUST be no free-agency (when your contract is over, a player is free to sign with any team for any amount of $$). If the new guard gets their way, it might be good for them in the short term, but bad for the NFL long term. A weakened NFL will most likely hurt the very large investments these guys made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 My answer to that is so what? Their investment will never go down. They could sell their team and stadium tomorrow for $100 million profit (actually much more). It is no one's fault but their own that they didn't get in on the ground floor like Wilson and some of the others. It would be different if there was a bigger gamble but there is not. It's impossible to lose money in the NFL and there are always willing buyers. These guys want to mess with the one thing that allowed them the luxury of not at all risking any cent of their investment. 606394[/snapback] It's far from a guarantee that NFL franchises will not lose value at some point in the future. In fact, the recent runup in franchise values places the latest entrants at the greatest risk of values peaking. That's far from a definition of a "risk-free" investment. Both sets of owners play a double talk game. The old guard complains that the newbies want more revenue sharing, while benefiting from the run up of values that the new guard has brought. The new guard complains that they can't get a good return on the investment, while benefiting from the health of the league that's imposed by the old guard. What's underlying everything is that the new owners take on large debt to finance the purchase. The league is worried that if the teams can't bring in enough cash to cover the debt payments, desperate owners will turn to drastic measures to prop up the clubs. The logical question is then, why did the new owners use debt to buy the teams? Well, not many people have $500 mill lying around or that they want to spend in cash on a purchase. The flip side, if the old owners were so worried about new owners taking on debt, they could have also set an artificial ceiling for the price of the franchises. If we have no sympathy for Snyder's dilemma of funding his team, we should have equally low sympathy for Wilson for taking his share of the over $1 billion in franchise fees over the last decade. It's not fun defending billionnaires, but at least let's get all the issue on the table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 It's far from a guarantee that NFL franchises will not lose value at some point in the future. In fact, the recent runup in franchise values places the latest entrants at the greatest risk of values peaking. That's far from a definition of a "risk-free" investment. Both sets of owners play a double talk game. The old guard complains that the newbies want more revenue sharing, while benefiting from the run up of values that the new guard has brought. The new guard complains that they can't get a good return on the investment, while benefiting from the health of the league that's imposed by the old guard. What's underlying everything is that the new owners take on large debt to finance the purchase. The league is worried that if the teams can't bring in enough cash to cover the debt payments, desperate owners will turn to drastic measures to prop up the clubs. The logical question is then, why did the new owners use debt to buy the teams? Well, not many people have $500 mill lying around or that they want to spend in cash on a purchase. The flip side, if the old owners were so worried about new owners taking on debt, they could have also set an artificial ceiling for the price of the franchises. If we have no sympathy for Snyder's dilemma of funding his team, we should have equally low sympathy for Wilson for taking his share of the over $1 billion in franchise fees over the last decade. It's not fun defending billionnaires, but at least let's get all the issue on the table. The problem is that the "new guard," who bought teams in the largest markets, built stadiums using their own money because they figured the unshared/"local" revenue would be enough to pay for it sooner rather than later. That's fine. But now that the NFLPA wants unshared/local revenue to count towards the cap and the "new guard" wants to as well, because they know it will benefit them more on-the-field since they'll be able to outspend smaller market teams, then they have a real problem on their hands. They shouldn't have been so quick to give-in to the NFLPA and give more money to the players, but start bitching and moaning about giving it to therir fellow owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 It's far from a guarantee that NFL franchises will not lose value at some point in the future. In fact, the recent runup in franchise values places the latest entrants at the greatest risk of values peaking. That's far from a definition of a "risk-free" investment. Both sets of owners play a double talk game. The old guard complains that the newbies want more revenue sharing, while benefiting from the run up of values that the new guard has brought. The new guard complains that they can't get a good return on the investment, while benefiting from the health of the league that's imposed by the old guard. What's underlying everything is that the new owners take on large debt to finance the purchase. The league is worried that if the teams can't bring in enough cash to cover the debt payments, desperate owners will turn to drastic measures to prop up the clubs. The logical question is then, why did the new owners use debt to buy the teams? Well, not many people have $500 mill lying around or that they want to spend in cash on a purchase. The flip side, if the old owners were so worried about new owners taking on debt, they could have also set an artificial ceiling for the price of the franchises. If we have no sympathy for Snyder's dilemma of funding his team, we should have equally low sympathy for Wilson for taking his share of the over $1 billion in franchise fees over the last decade. It's not fun defending billionnaires, but at least let's get all the issue on the table. 606411[/snapback] You know far more about the financial world than I do, but I don't really know of any owner that couldn't sell his team for a lot more money than he bought it for, especially recently. And while a long time ago, a lousy or stupid owner could lose money on a yearly basis, with the new TV contracts of the last decade and as far off in the future we can see, it's virtually impossible to not make a profit with every single franchise. I don't know this but I wouldn't doubt if the Saints this year made a profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gobillsinytown Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Yes, they were found guilty of anti-trust exemptions. Their damages? Three dollars. I was under the impression that the NFL had NO antitrust exemptions, but you say they have "significant antitrust exemptions". What exemptions do they have? They were found guilty of anti-trust violations in their case against the USFL. I know they weren't exempt then- what has changed? 606392[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gobillsinytown Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 We are kinda diverging again Bill? Why not give the owners the freedom to do what they want? Their job is to squash their competitors on the field and in the market. And all this chicken little mentality is just that... There will always be teams to play against... Some of the not so financially sound will fail... The talent can be spread around less teams and we will see a better product. As for Buffalo losing a team. It will never be because of owners like Synder, Jones, or Kraft... It will be their own doing. I guess I am really against all you socialists... 606225[/snapback] I understand where you're coming from, but those economics do not apply here. Different parts of the country have different levels of economic success. There's also the issue of tradition and history, which plays a large role in how the NFL views itself and markets itself. Also, the owners and league have more than enough money to help the smaller market teams. This is not an issue of need or competitiveness. This is an issue of greed. I'm sorry but I simply cannot defend individuals with almost unlimited amounts of money (primarily based on geographic location) and notions of entitlement. The arrogance of Jerry Jones to say: "Other teams don't work as hard as us" is complete horsesh*t. First of all, Jerry has no idea of how hard the other teams are working. Second, he benefits from his location more than anything else, because the team is located in a growth market. It's also one thing to play out an uncapped league in theory and quite another to see its real world effects. Does any devoted follower of the league and student of the game really want to see teams with almost over 50 years of history and tradition just up and disappear? This is where I think the most damage would be done: The perception of the league by sports fans in general is going to change, and not for the better. And uncapped NFL will get a lot smaller, and I think we would all be quite suprised and what teams would be in immediate trouble. Besides the small market teams like Buffalo and Green Bay, I could see Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Kansas City, Oakland, and even San Diego and New England and Philidelphia running into major problems. The last thing I think many are forgetting: The costs of an uncapped league are going to be passed on to the fans. Just imagine how much ticket prices will go up if the costs of aquiring players goes up by say, 30 percent? What makes the NFL unique is it's hard salary cap, which benefits the entire league. And in my mind, Jerry f'in Jones has more than enough money to suck it up for the good of the sport. [ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Check out this article: http://eagles.scout.com/2/500598.html Frankly I don't think that the "have-mores" will get their way. The 7 teams who want the cap to be based on ALL revenue, but to only share what's already being shared, need at least 2 more teams to join them, and the only real shot they have is Chicago. And despite what they say, they/NFL do NOT want to not workout a new deal, because it will lead to things like the NFLPA suing and the union decertifying, no draft, and will lead smaller market teams to stop paying-for big name FA's and pocketing the difference, which will lead them to lose and to viewership dropping. That will lead to the networks grumbling and offering less money on the next round of contracts. So it's a matter of who blinks first, and it will be the "new guard." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 Why do so many people support the NFL and what it is doing as all right? In our society, why can't we apply the league's model to "Americans" and American business? As Americans, we are all part of the same league... Right? We get all edgy about our sport's teams... Why not other businesses? If Buffalo loses a team because their market can't keep up with the rest... Should we cry?... Heck no! Why the heck should we care? We don't care about anybody else? Sure I am playing a lot of devil's advocate here... But, why are we all up in arms about a sports team... Just another business? I just don't get the hypocrisy. If it is something "beloved" we get all crazy about it and sell our ideals down the river. And no, I am not trying to inflame here... I am serious and please don't take this as any kinda slight. As Americans, our priorites are really screwed up... Who gives a heck about a damn football team. I am also not saying I won't support them and root for the Bills or other WNY teams... I will, but there is only so much you can control and become attached too. That attachment in the big picture isn't really that strong. Sorry... Just my personal feelings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 The 7 teams who want the cap to be based on ALL revenue, but to only share what's already being shared, need at least 2 more teams to join them, and the only real shot they have is Chicago. 606514[/snapback] I'm sure Paul Allen is more than happy to help out the Rooneys these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gobillsinytown Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 Why do so many people support the NFL and what it is doing as all right? In our society, why can't we apply the league's model to "Americans" and American business? As Americans, we are all part of the same league... Right? We get all edgy about our sport's teams... Why not other businesses? If Buffalo loses a team because their market can't keep up with the rest... Should we cry?... Heck no! Why the heck should we care? We don't care about anybody else? Sure I am playing a lot of devil's advocate here... But, why are we all up in arms about a sports team... Just another business? I just don't get the hypocrisy. If it is something "beloved" we get all crazy about it and sell our ideals down the river. And no, I am not trying to inflame here... I am serious and please don't take this as any kinda slight. As Americans, our priorites are really screwed up... Who gives a heck about a damn football team. I am also not saying I won't support them and root for the Bills or other WNY teams... I will, but there is only so much you can control and become attached too. That attachment in the big picture isn't really that strong. Sorry... Just my personal feelings. 606535[/snapback] ExiledInIllinois: Please don't misunderstand me. You're absolutely right: In the long run and in perspective with the rest of our country's problems, this stuff is just a hobby. I think people follow professional football, or any sport, with such enthusiasm because it's an escape from reality. In Pro Football, there's a winner and a loser when the game is over. It's pretty black and white and makes it easy to get behind. Of course, we all know that real life is usually one big grey area filled with compromises and no clear cut winner and loser. I've been a Bills fan for over 35 years and I love the team. And even though I spend time following the team in my leisure time, it all takes a backseat to my family and job. But if we didn't have a message board like this to argue the finer points of a league we'll never be a part of and probably don't have a clue about, it wouldn't be any fun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 ExiledInIllinois: Please don't misunderstand me. You're absolutely right: In the long run and in perspective with the rest of our country's problems, this stuff is just a hobby. I think people follow professional football, or any sport, with such enthusiasm because it's an escape from reality. In Pro Football, there's a winner and a loser when the game is over. It's pretty black and white and makes it easy to get behind. Of course, we all know that real life is usually one big grey area filled with compromises and no clear cut winner and loser. I've been a Bills fan for over 35 years and I love the team. And even though I spend time following the team in my leisure time, it all takes a backseat to my family and job. But if we didn't have a message board like this to argue the finer points of a league we'll never be a part of and probably don't have a clue about, it wouldn't be any fun! 606565[/snapback] Agree. Football here is the cement that holds everyhting together. I am not trying to be a downer... It just gets me sometimes. I just want Buffalo to finally stand on its own... Given the chance to compete, I think they can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsWatch Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 Well perhaps if you were not a "Semi-Retired Costumed Crusader", perhaps you could have prevented this dilemma. Another slacker! 606194[/snapback] $nyder cares about my opinion as he does about the bugs he picks out of his teeth and hair! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts