2003Contenders Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 Not to mention that Synder can force people to pay $35 for parking and literally double the price of season tickets because he knows that people are actually PAYING to be on the waiting list to get season tickets. Oh, and under the new terms, I suppose all of that would count as revenue too.
stuckincincy Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 In order to keep the competitiveness of the NFL, revenue sharing is a must.That is a given. But if I'm a Daniel Snyder, why would continue selling my stadium's name or any other "local" merchandise, if I'm going to end up giving it to the NFL. Especially when some teams don't sell their stadiums names at all. Like the Bills. Maybe the NFL need to either force all teams to sell their stadium's name, or tax the ones that don't an amount worthy of value of their stadium’s name. Or cap the amount of extra revenue a team can bring in on its own. I can see the NFL not wanting to limit any income so capping revenue seems unlikely. The only other option I can see is the NFL taking control of all merchandising for all the teams, and then splitting it up. 621265[/snapback] I've never liked the fact that stadiums built with public funds have company names on them.
The Dean Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 I've never liked the fact that stadiums built with public funds have company names on them. 621273[/snapback] As a taxpayer, I'd expect/demand the naming rights be sold. But, the revenue wouldn't go to the team or the league. If the Bills build a new stadium and ask Erie County to foot much of the bill, Erie County should demand the right to sell the name of the stadium in return. Truth be told, I don't give a rat's ass what the stadium is name. I prefered Rich Stadium to Ralph Wilson Stadium. If it made things financially easier fof the county, state or even the Bills, I could live with Sundowner Gentelmen's Club Stadium.
stuckincincy Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 As a taxpayer, I'd expect/demand the naming rights be sold. But, the revenue wouldn't go to the team or the league. If the Bills build a new stadium and ask Erie County to foot much of the bill, Erie County should demand the right to sell the name of the stadium in return. Truth be told, I don't give a rat's ass what the stadium is name. I prefered Rich Stadium to Ralph Wilson Stadium. If it made things financially easier fof the county, state or even the Bills, I could live with Sundowner Gentelmen's Club Stadium. 621287[/snapback] OK. How about "Barnum was Right!" Stadium?... .
The Dean Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 OK. How about "Barnum was Right!" Stadium?... . 621290[/snapback] If Barnum payed for it, who would be the sucker?
stuckincincy Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 If Barnum payed for it, who would be the sucker? 621293[/snapback] If Barnum ponied up his own cash to build the thing, nobody.
JDG Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 I think that is a very reasonable compromise. I'm no fan of Snyder and his cronies...but, it is reasonable to expect naming rights to be sold in this day and age. Buffalo was at the forefront of this movement with Rich Stadium. So, if they want to figure that Ralph should be throwing an extra $1 mil/year or so into the pot...fine. On the other hand, PSL's are not reasonable...ever...period. 621268[/snapback] Except for the fact that stadium naming rights don't even begin to account for the full difference in revenues between teams. JDG
JCBoston Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 Except for the fact that stadium naming rights don't even begin to account for the full difference in revenues between teams. JDG 621313[/snapback] And there is the real problem. Metro areas with a large number of corporations willing to buy luxury boxes will undoubtedly make more money than areas that don't have that kind of corporate largess. With more potential customers, prices go up. This is why I believe that a revenue sharing formula needs to work on a percentage basis. To combat the problem of a Bidwell sitting on his ass, the league should define a formula that redistributes revenue (argh, shiver!) based on a percentage of the amount of "local revenue" raised. In this way, middle market teams like Carolina would get less shared revenue than, say, Buffalo, who would in turn get more than Arizona. As Arizona raised its local revenue, and moved more toward the center of the bell curve, it would get more. Or something like that :-)
The Dean Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 Except for the fact that stadium naming rights don't even begin to account for the full difference in revenues between teams. JDG 621313[/snapback] i understand that, and agree. I'm just saying there is ONE point on which I agree with the new guys...and, maybe the only point.
Lurker Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 And there is the real problem. Metro areas with a large number of corporations willing to buy luxury boxes will undoubtedly make more money than areas that don't have that kind of corporate largess. With more potential customers, prices go up. This is why I believe that a revenue sharing formula needs to work on a percentage basis. To combat the problem of a Bidwell sitting on his ass, the league should define a formula that redistributes revenue (argh, shiver!) based on a percentage of the amount of "local revenue" raised. In this way, middle market teams like Carolina would get less shared revenue than, say, Buffalo, who would in turn get more than Arizona. As Arizona raised its local revenue, and moved more toward the center of the bell curve, it would get more. Or something like that :-) 621326[/snapback] You know, rather than trying to develop a complex market-by-market fomula, I'd rather they just make it the salary cap more of a "hard cap" with strict guidelines on the structure and size of bonus payments (e.g., no more than 5-year amorts, max of $5 million in signing bonuses per player, etc.). As I understand it, the small market teams aren't asking to be subsidized from a profit/earnings perspective--they're just afraid the wealthy teams have a big advantage in signing free agents because of the extra revenue they can tap to pay in up-front bonuses. Neutralize that advantage through restrictions on bonus / over the cap spending and all will be hunky dory. The big market teams will be even more profitable, but so what.
Ramius Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 You know, rather than trying to develop a complex market-by-market fomula, I'd rather they just make it the salary cap more of a "hard cap" with strict guidelines on the structure and size of bonus payments (e.g., no more than 5-year amorts, max of $5 million in signing bonuses per player, etc.). As I understand it, the small market teams aren't asking to be subsidized from a profit/earnings perspective--they're just afraid the wealthy teams have a big advantage in signing free agents because of the extra revenue they can tap to pay in up-front bonuses. Neutralize that advantage through restrictions on bonus / over the cap spending and all will be hunky dory. The big market teams will be even more profitable, but so what. 621428[/snapback] good in theory, but you'll never see a limit on signing bonuses, at least not until there are guaranteed contracts. The signing bonus is the only guaranteed money these guys will get in the contract, so no way they'd limit it. And if you have guaranteed contracts, then the whole point of a signing bonus is moot.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 I believe that's what the "cash over cap" proposal was supposed to do.
JDG Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 As I understand it, the small market teams aren't asking to be subsidized from a profit/earnings perspective--they're just afraid the wealthy teams have a big advantage in signing free agents because of the extra revenue they can tap to pay in up-front bonuses. Neutralize that advantage through restrictions on bonus / over the cap spending and all will be hunky dory. The big market teams will be even more profitable, but so what. 621428[/snapback] That's not really true. The NFLPA's final proposal is that the salary cap be set at 59.5% of League-wide revenues. Because of the disparity betwen the high-revenue and low-revenue teams, this raises the distinct possibility that at some point the salary cap could be *more* than the annual revenues for some of the low-revenue teams. That's why the NFL Owners can't approve the NFLPA's offer without some kind of improved revenue sharing. Without improved revenue sharing, the high-revenue teams are against the deal because it gives the players a full slice of the non-shared revenue they are currently earning, meanwhile, the low-revenue teams are against the deal because it raises the specter of the salary cap no longer maintaining competitive balance. JDG
Lurker Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 That's not really true. Because of the disparity betwen the high-revenue and low-revenue teams, this raises the distinct possibility that at some point the salary cap could be *more* than the annual revenues for some of the low-revenue teams. 621461[/snapback] I see your point. Based on the Forbes number for 2004, 59.5% of league-wide revenues would have amounted to $99 million per team. Arizona was the lowest revenue producer that year ($131 million in total revenue) while Washington was the highest ($245 million). Assuming league-wide revenues increased at 10% per year and Arizona's revenue grew by half that amount, the salary cap would equal 100% of the Cards revenue by 2010. Yikes!
Recommended Posts