Corp000085 Posted March 6, 2006 Posted March 6, 2006 Is he there arguing for better revenue sharing between large and small markets teams? What's he doing with the legal stuff? This guy is a walking PR nightmare for the bills, but does he still actually "have it" these past days or weeks? Are his estate lawyers, wife, or daughters negotiating for him? I'm just curious as to the actual physical role of the "old guard" guys like wilson, hunt, rooney, and davis. I haven't seen much comments coming from the owners or players besides for upshaw and tagliabue. (by the way, what a blemish for tags if this thing does indeed fall through the floor between now and 2008)
Guest BackInDaDay Posted March 6, 2006 Posted March 6, 2006 his "physical role" is probably napping. 618769[/snapback] They place his numb shrunken head under the short leg of the conference table. Seriously, Ralph's most likely there to protect his revenue streams from being negotiated away to the NFLPA and fellow owners.
obie_wan Posted March 6, 2006 Posted March 6, 2006 They place his numb shrunken head under the short leg of the conference table. Seriously, Ralph's most likely there to protect his revenue streams from being negotiated away to the NFLPA and fellow owners. 618773[/snapback] the problem is Ralph does not have much in the way of local revenue streams. Revenue from local TV and radio deals, luxury boxes, stadium naming rights in the Buffalo market will not let a team like Buffalo compete with the big boys when the salary cap goes to $110 milllion based on shared revenues of the larger market teams. Player salaries will constitue 30-40% of a large revenue team's budget while a team like the Bills will have to commit > 70% of its total revenue to player costs. That's why the union is smart to mandate that the owner's get their structurre in place to prevent small revenue teams from becoming orphan step-children unable to pay large money contracts to the union members.
Guest BackInDaDay Posted March 6, 2006 Posted March 6, 2006 the problem is Ralph does not have much in the way of local revenue streams. Revenue from local TV and radio deals, luxury boxes, stadium naming rights in the Buffalo market will not let a team like Buffalo compete with the big boys when the salary cap goes to $110 milllion based on shared revenues of the larger market teams. Player salaries will constitue 30-40% of a large revenue team's budget while a team like the Bills will have to commit > 70% of its total revenue to player costs. That's why the union is smart to mandate that the owner's get their structurre in place to prevent small revenue teams from becoming orphan step-children unable to pay large money contracts to the union members. 619055[/snapback] Point taken, which is why Upshaw's shooting for a flat-rate cut of the action. He sees the turmoil, and he doesn't want to try to predict the outcome. His fear has to be that the owners will upset the competitive balance of the league and retard it's growth. The last CBA was a great example of compromise to achieve growth which benefitted owner and player alike. I'm sure he's willing to wait on extending the CBA under the current circumstances. Of course, the fact that the league keeps pushing off the start of their new year means that the owners are considering what an eventually un-capped NFL will develop into. As you say, under current conditions high-revenue owners are inflicting a burden upon low-revenue clubs to compete, but an un-capped NFL will be run-away train. And although it comes with some posturing, Upshaw's warning (that once his membership is freed from cap-restraints, there'll be no going back) better send chills down the owner's backs. Because if that's the future of the NFL, then the parity responsible for the league's growth will be lost to the predictable outcomes of high payroll teams beating low payroll teams. When only the high-revenue clubs are marketable, what becomes of the national broadcast rights that were the backbone of the league's growth. Why should Fox, CBS and ESPN pay for a Bills/Bengals game when no one is interested any more? National broadcast rights will eventually become regionalized, removing the jewel of shared revenue and further crippling the ability of small market teams to compete. What becomes of merchandise sales? How many Cowboys jerseys need to be sold to make up the difference in this shared revenue when the Browns hats and Jaguars jackets remain on the shelves? Tagliabue has to do more than appoint commitees that point out the obvious and create 'disparity' funds to assist low-revenue franchises. He has to have a vision of what the NFL should become in it's next 20 years, and he has to communicate and persuade the owners to help to make that vision a reality. If he's going to rely on the owners to work this out on their own, the NFL as we've enjoyed it, will begin it's death spiral. The good news is, we'll all have more time on Sundays to rake leaves, play with our kids, mend fences, and annoy our wives.
Pyrite Gal Posted March 6, 2006 Posted March 6, 2006 Point taken, which is why Upshaw's shooting for a flat-rate cut of the action. He sees the turmoil, and he doesn't want to try to predict the outcome. His fear has to be that the owners will upset the competitive balance of the league and retard it's growth. The last CBA was a great example of compromise to achieve growth which benefitted owner and player alike. I'm sure he's willing to wait on extending the CBA under the current circumstances. Of course, the fact that the league keeps pushing off the start of their new year means that the owners are considering what an eventually un-capped NFL will develop into. As you say, under current conditions high-revenue owners are inflicting a burden upon low-revenue clubs to compete, but an un-capped NFL will be run-away train. And although it comes with some posturing, Upshaw's warning (that once his membership is freed from cap-restraints, there'll be no going back) better send chills down the owner's backs. Because if that's the future of the NFL, then the parity responsible for the league's growth will be lost to the predictable outcomes of high payroll teams beating low payroll teams. When only the high-revenue clubs are marketable, what becomes of the national broadcast rights that were the backbone of the league's growth. Why should Fox, CBS and ESPN pay for a Bills/Bengals game when no one is interested any more? National broadcast rights will eventually become regionalized, removing the jewel of shared revenue and further crippling the ability of small market teams to compete. What becomes of merchandise sales? How many Cowboys jerseys need to be sold to make up the difference in this shared revenue when the Browns hats and Jaguars jackets remain on the shelves? Tagliabue has to do more than appoint commitees that point out the obvious and create 'disparity' funds to assist low-revenue franchises. He has to have a vision of what the NFL should become in it's next 20 years, and he has to communicate and persuade the owners to help to make that vision a reality. If he's going to rely on the owners to work this out on their own, the NFL as we've enjoyed it, will begin it's death spiral. The good news is, we'll all have more time on Sundays to rake leaves, play with our kids, mend fences, and annoy our wives. 619185[/snapback] Exactly! Many posters need to recognize that while Upshaw is far from a saint (actually he is not paid to be a saint) he is not the only or even the lead issue or problem here. The big issue is that small revenue vs, large revenue markets are really operating different business models and have yet to develop a single model for the NFLPA to negotiate with. It's comples, a moving target and difficult to understand and that's fine we are all in the same boat. Its simply silly that some folks chose to not acknowledge reality or their own lack of understanding of this quandary and make rediculous statements that so and so is a tard.
BEAST MODE BABY! Posted March 6, 2006 Posted March 6, 2006 I heard the one question he had during the meetings was "Is it Monday?"
Guest BackInDaDay Posted March 6, 2006 Posted March 6, 2006 Exactly! Many posters need to recognize that while Upshaw is far from a saint (actually he is not paid to be a saint) he is not the only or even the lead issue or problem here. The big issue is that small revenue vs, large revenue markets are really operating different business models and have yet to develop a single model for the NFLPA to negotiate with. It's comples, a moving target and difficult to understand and that's fine we are all in the same boat. Its simply silly that some folks chose to not acknowledge reality or their own lack of understanding of this quandary and make rediculous statements that so and so is a tard. 619193[/snapback] Easy, Gal. It's just a message board. Keep it in perspective.
bills_fan_in_raleigh Posted March 6, 2006 Posted March 6, 2006 the problem is Ralph does not have much in the way of local revenue streams. Revenue from local TV and radio deals, luxury boxes, stadium naming rights in the Buffalo market will not let a team like Buffalo compete with the big boys when the salary cap goes to $110 milllion based on shared revenues of the larger market teams. Player salaries will constitue 30-40% of a large revenue team's budget while a team like the Bills will have to commit > 70% of its total revenue to player costs. That's why the union is smart to mandate that the owner's get their structurre in place to prevent small revenue teams from becoming orphan step-children unable to pay large money contracts to the union members. 619055[/snapback] Ralph could help by selling naming rights to the stadium same with Paul Brown in Cincy. Yes its hard to have all the luxory boxes in Buffalo versus Dallas or other places but at least he can get some cash for things he can get.
Recommended Posts