MadBuffaloDisease Posted February 22, 2006 Posted February 22, 2006 GANG OF NINE REVEALED NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw recently said that nine NFL franchises are resisting the expansion of revenue sharing by the league's 32 teams. Upshaw also told Mark Maske of The Washington Post that the nine teams are planning to file suit if they are forced to share revenues that currently are not distributed evenly among all teams. A league source has identified for us the members of this modern-day Mudville nine: the Redskins, Eagles, Cowboys, Giants, Jets, Panthers, Broncos, Patriots, and Texans. We'd previously heard that the NFL and the union tentatively have agreed to expand the components of so-called "Defined Gross Revenue" (which is the basis for the team-by-team salary cap) to include money not currently shared by the various franchises. The proponents of enhanced revenue argue that, if any currently unshared revenue streams are to be included in the determination of DGR, the corresponding revenue should be shared equally -- and that, if the revenue is not to be shared, it should be excluded from the DGR calculation. The source also confirmed that the Mudville nine plan to sue if they are forced to accept expanded revenue sharing by the other 23 organizations. Frankly, we still don't understand how it would ever come to that, since nine votes are sufficient to block any changes to the way the NFL does business, given that 24 "yes" votes would be required to, for example, impose expanded revenue sharing. NFL spokesman Greg Aiello tells us that, under the current system, teams share all national broadcast revenues, all sponsorship revenues, all licensing revenues, and the visiting team's share of ticket revenues. The following revenues aren't shared: the home team's share of the box-office revenue, local radio revenue, local TV revenue, local sponsorship revenue, and stadium-generated revenues from signage, concessions, parking, luxury suites, etc. and then... ROONEY CLARIFIES LAWSUIT THREAT Steelers chairman Dan Rooney provides some key insight regarding the recent reports that a group of franchises have threatened to sue if the NFL adopts a revenue-sharing plan that encroaches upon currently unshared revenues. NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw recently said that nine teams are strongly opposed to enhanced revenue sharing, and that they will sue the others if forced to give up local revenue streams that they currently pocket. "I think they might vote against revenue sharing, but what are they going to sue for?" Rooney told The Washington Post. "They're trying to say if we get the votes [to approve a revenue sharing plan], they'll sue. I don't see what they can sue about. They have the right to vote no." And if nine are going to vote against any such proposal, there's no need for a lawsuit because nine nays are enough to block the move. Here's our interpretation -- one or two members of the Mudville nine might be wobbling. Since it only takes one of them to join with the other 23 teams to impose their collective will on the remaining eight, the possibility that a change of heart could spark an unprecedented legal fight among the members of the Billionaire Boys Club might be enough to get the folks who might be on the fence to remain united in the Gang of Nine. Revenue sharing is a key issue now because the NFLPA hopes to include currently unshared revenues in the determination of the team-by-team salary cap. But the inclusion of the unshared revenues will result in a salary cap that, for lower earning teams, is too high -- forcing them to choose between skimping on player salaries and giving up a bigger chunk of their profit margin. I'm not surprised at any of those teams except the Panthers.
OGTEleven Posted February 22, 2006 Posted February 22, 2006 Mr. Snyder, Mr. Jones, Mr. Kraft, I'd like to introduce you to the Golden Goose. Hey, what are you doing with that knife?
MadBuffaloDisease Posted February 22, 2006 Author Posted February 22, 2006 Veruca Salt would be proud.
stinky finger Posted February 22, 2006 Posted February 22, 2006 Veruca Salt would be proud. 608322[/snapback] ...."But Daddy?!?!...I want a pony".......
bills_fan_in_raleigh Posted February 22, 2006 Posted February 22, 2006 and then...I'm not surprised at any of those teams except the Panthers. 608303[/snapback] Panthers dont suprise me at all the have major PSL and Richardson is buddies with Kraft, Jones and the rest of these guys who want to turn the NFL into major league baseball.
dogbyte Posted February 22, 2006 Posted February 22, 2006 MR Kraft has been one of the driving force to getting the TV contracts that the other owners are sharing. His problem is this, if other teams want to share his revenue then they should share his debt also. He spent 300 million to build a stadium while teams like St Louis had a 400 million dollar stadium built by taxpayers money. The Rams get all concessions and parking monies and pay no rent. He wants the debt shared, or the revunes used to payoff his debt for the stadium.
plenzmd1 Posted February 22, 2006 Posted February 22, 2006 Panthers dont suprise me at all the have major PSL and Richardson is buddies with Kraft, Jones and the rest of these guys who want to turn the NFL into major league baseball. 608449[/snapback] I dunno bout that. Heard something on the radio , can't remeber who, said that the problem that Carolina has is that teams like the Falcons , whos owner is richer than God, can give certain things away that teams like the Panthers have to charge for in order to break even. It was mentioned the Panthers struggle to break even on their stadium deal, charging for everything wherever they can. So Richardsons reluctance stems from the fact he would then be sharing those revenues with teams like the Falcons. In essence, he would be sharing his local revenue with a richer, bigger market team, just cause Blank chooses to give away things the Panthers charge for. And I can see that reasoning.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 22, 2006 Posted February 22, 2006 MR Kraft has been one of the driving force to getting the TV contracts that the other owners are sharing. His problem is this, if other teams want to share his revenue then they should share his debt also. He spent 300 million to build a stadium while teams like St Louis had a 400 million dollar stadium built by taxpayers money. The Rams get all concessions and parking monies and pay no rent. He wants the debt shared, or the revunes used to payoff his debt for the stadium. 608549[/snapback] Tough sh--. No one forced you at gunpoint to put out 300 million for a stadium or pay 500 million for a franchise.
GG Posted February 22, 2006 Posted February 22, 2006 Tough sh--. No one forced you at gunpoint to put out 300 million for a stadium or pay 500 million for a franchise. 608679[/snapback] It works both ways, the old owners aren't forced to accept $500mil for franchises that the new owners pay, nor the $1 bn in new franchise fees.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted February 22, 2006 Author Posted February 22, 2006 Ask yourself this: why WOULD a guy like Kraft put up the money for a stadium by himself instead of asking for taxpayer's money? You think it's ALL because he's altruistic? Yeah, right. I'm all for giving the guys who put up money for their own stadiums and such a little something extra to cover costs. I also think that Ralph should have to sell the naming rights to RWS and that Blank should have to start charging for what he was previously giving away for free. It's called a compromise.
Guest BackInDaDay Posted February 23, 2006 Posted February 23, 2006 MR Kraft has been one of the driving force to getting the TV contracts that the other owners are sharing. His problem is this, if other teams want to share his revenue then they should share his debt also. He spent 300 million to build a stadium while teams like St Louis had a 400 million dollar stadium built by taxpayers money. The Rams get all concessions and parking monies and pay no rent. He wants the debt shared, or the revunes used to payoff his debt for the stadium. 608549[/snapback] Bingo. It's all about debt relief, and how the league will restructure revenue sharing to resolve the problem. I'm too lazy to rehash everything that was written two weeks ago on this subject, so here's a link, if you're interested. http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showt...ndpost&p=596207
Recommended Posts