buffaloboyinATL Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 I think we fall somewhere in the middle of the pack but I know we are considered one of the small market teams. Is Buffalo one of the teams voting against the new revenue share? As reported earlier this week by ESPN.com, there is a bloc of nine to 10 low-revenue franchises, very solid in their convictions, and prepared to veto any extension to the collective bargaining agreement that does not sufficiently address their own local needs. Owners of those teams view the internal revenue-sharing issue as critical to their financial viability in coming years. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2355190 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snorom Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 that's guarenteed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExWNYer Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 I think we fall somewhere in the middle of the pack but I know we are considered one of the small market teams. Is Buffalo one of the teams voting against the new revenue share? As reported earlier this week by ESPN.com, there is a bloc of nine to 10 low-revenue franchises, very solid in their convictions, and prepared to veto any extension to the collective bargaining agreement that does not sufficiently address their own local needs. Owners of those teams view the internal revenue-sharing issue as critical to their financial viability in coming years. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2355190 618447[/snapback] Count Buffalo among those in the "low revenue" category. They don't generate the money that Washington, Dallas, New England, et al do. Also, they haven't sold the naming rights to the stadium which would generate some money. Ralph has gone on record in the past as an advocate of more revenue sharing as long as teams use the money for football operations and don't just hoard it like a small market team in baseball might. The big boys in the NFL are going to have to contribute more to the league in order to keep teams like the Bills viable. If not, they will kill the goose that laid the golden egg and it will eventually be the demise and disappearance of small market teams like the Bills. Even if the smaller teams were to survive, they'd become like the noncompetitive smaller teams in MLB like KC and PIT...non factors and afterthoughts in the sport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffaloboyinATL Posted March 5, 2006 Author Share Posted March 5, 2006 Even if the smaller teams were to survive, they'd become like the noncompetitive smaller teams in MLB like KC and PIT...non factors and afterthoughts in the sport. 618450[/snapback] This is actually one of my big fears. I hate the way the it works in baseball with the have vs have not factor. That would make it impossible for Buffalo to compete with the "rich guys" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stussy109 Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 cheapest tickets in the NFL, i would assume so.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Here's how NFL teams ranked in revenue in 2004, the most recent year for which numbers are available. Figures are in millions: 1. Washington Redskins 287 2. New England Patriots 236 3. Dallas Cowboys 231 4. Philadelphia Eagles 216 5. Houston Texans 215 6. Cleveland Browns 203 7. Denver Broncos 202 8. Carolina Panthers 195 9. Tampa Bay Buccaneers 195 10. Chicago Bears 193 11. Baltimore Ravens 192 12. Miami Dolphins 190 13. Green Bay Packers 189 14. Tennessee Titans 186 15. Detroit Lions 186 16. Seattle Seahawks 183 17. Pittsburgh Steelers 182 18. Kansas City Chiefs 181 19. St. Louis Rams 176 20. New York Giants 175 21. New Orleans Saints 175 22. Buffalo Bills 173 23. New York Jets 172 24. Cincinnati Bengals 171 25. San Francisco 49ers 171 26. Jacksonville Jaguars 169 27. Oakland Raiders 169 28. Atlanta Falcons 168 29. Indianapolis Colts 166 30. San Diego Chargers 165 31. Minnesota Vikings 164 32. Arizona Cardinals 153 -- SOURCE: Forbes Magazine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Surprised about the Giants, Jets, and Falcons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrobot Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 I was surprised about the Colts at 166. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like A Mofo Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Notice most of the teams towards the bottom have older stadiums? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACor58 Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Here's how NFL teams ranked in revenue in 2004, the most recent year for which numbers are available. Figures are in millions: 1. Washington Redskins 287 618632[/snapback] You're tax dollars at work. Lobbyists and Contractors paying huge sums of cash for premium seating and luxury boxes to bribe Government officials. Gotta love it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 You're tax dollars at work. Lobbyists and Contractors paying huge sums of cash for premium seating and luxury boxes to bribe Government officials. Gotta love it. 619006[/snapback] Get some great baseball seats, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckeye Eric Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Here's how NFL teams ranked in revenue in 2004, the most recent year for which numbers are available. Figures are in millions: 1. Washington Redskins 287 -- SOURCE: Forbes Magazine 618632[/snapback] I wonder what their total would be without Jack Abramoff filling the suites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts