Guest BackInDaDay Posted March 9, 2006 Posted March 9, 2006 Also.. There has to be a 'hardship' for the other 15 owners to accept the financial burden of carrying the expanded revenue sharing money to the players. Will the increased cap raise the 'floor' significantly? Maybe, but if the effort given in that Dallas conference room is any indication of the owners' resolve to continue growing a healthy NFL, I doubt they would enact any legislature to cripple another team's ability to compete. The players offer had to include a minimum. How it's been incorporated into the new CBA, who knows? Go ask Ralph.
Buftex Posted March 9, 2006 Posted March 9, 2006 As far as your 'hardship' statement, who's saying that? Not busting chops, but if I'm missing something I'd like to know what. Every indication was that this new CBA and the revenue sharing it was built upon, worked very favorably for the low-revenue clubs. 622385[/snapback] I heard Mortenson, and Vic Carruci both say something similar on ESPN last night. Like you, I am just trying to figure out what I am missing. It sounds good to me...but some of the owners who voted in favor of it (Dan Rooney) are even saying it will be difficult for some teams to contend with.
Lurker Posted March 9, 2006 Posted March 9, 2006 I doubt they would enact any legislature to cripple another team's ability to compete. 622409[/snapback] Hey, wanna buy a nice bridge? Maybe some swamp land? Or, given the Dallas location of the meeting, how about some nice oil field drilling rights?
Guest BackInDaDay Posted March 9, 2006 Posted March 9, 2006 Bupkis. This CBA is still tilted against the small revenue teams. The revenue pool crafted to aid small revenue teams only covers the first four years of the agreement. What happens after that? Are they left high and dry? All this agreement did was buy some time. The fundamental issue between the "haves" and "have nots" remains the same. The agreement also makes it more likely than ever the Bills will have a new owner within the next four years. Better hope NYS steps up with an incentive offer to keep the team here (even though I personally hate these kind of handouts), becuase the economics of the league are increasingly going against markets like Buffalo. 622381[/snapback] The financial dynamics of the league have shifted. The 'clean slate' model of competitve franchises enjoying the same revenue and return on their investments has been skewed by club sales, movement and the aggressive marketing of new owners trying to recover costs. It is what it is, but this last exercise at least began to address the situation. There's no simple solutions, and under the circumstances, 'buying time' for the league to further take advantage of it's popularity is good for everyone. It's still a business. How many KFC franchisers would dip into their pockets to keep the failing ones going? Sooner or later the NFL may outgrow certain cities and yes, Buffalo may be one of them.
Guest BackInDaDay Posted March 9, 2006 Posted March 9, 2006 Hey, wanna buy a nice bridge? Maybe some swamp land? Or, given the Dallas location of the meeting, how about some nice oil field drilling rights? 622421[/snapback] Too late. I've already been offered a property in the Love Canal on another post. But tell me 'bout this bridge. Look, it's a business. These guys will prop up the under-achieving clubs to maintain the continuity of the league. The NFL is very self-conscious about it's image and the parity it promotes. The "any given Sunday" credo is what sells the weekend's activities. Financially hamstringing the low-revenue clubs makes no sense. There may come a day when pro football in small markets can no longer be supported, but at least we know it's at least 6 years away.
Recommended Posts