Dicarse's Sunday Column

[Crows57]

Maybe it's just me, but Dicarse's column today about how the new labor deal is bad for the Bills was a pretty poor column.

 

The only specific in the column was that:

 

Franchises such as Buffalo and Cincinnati that spend to the cap would incur $20 million in player salary increases over the next two years, a burden that exceeds what they'll receive from the NFL's laughable, bare-bones revenue-sharing plan.

 

And not only was that the only specific, it was deceptive. It's $20 million over TWO years. Why not just say $10 million year?

 

What are the specifics of the revenue sharing plan? What constitutes laughable, bare bones revenue sharing?

 

$10 million in the NFL is hardly worth getting worked up over. The Bills revenues will almost certainly increase that much just from normal NFL shared revenues (TV, etc..)

 

Large-market franchises will continue to lure prime talent by offering signing bonuses their little brothers lack the liquidity to match. Never mind that bonuses have been capped.

 

It's too bad the Bills can't sign a player like Larry Tripplett or Robert Royal because they don't have the liquidity that the big revenue teams have (whether these were wise signings is another issue).

 

And another lack of specifics: What's the amount of the bonus cap? Is it that high that it doesn't matter?

 

 

Because while the Bills might remain mildly profitable in Buffalo, they would be immensely profitable in San Antonio, Las Vegas or Los Angeles.

 

Regardless of the labor deal the Bills would be more profitable in another city.

 

Bottom line to me - the new deal is the same as the old deal except there's a larger percentage going to the players. The Bills will have enough resources to compete. Could the deal have been better for them? Sure, but it's not prohibiting anything.

 

Bengals President Mike Brown joined Wilson in voting against a deal that was - let's be clear about this - a railroad job.

 

Much like that column. One deceptive specific and one second hand quote pulled off the internet.

[MadBuffaloDisease]

Here, let me help you out. The salary cap this year under the previous CBA was going to be $94.5M, and for the sake of simplicity, let's say it was going to be $96.5M for 2007. Now it's $102M and next year will be $109M. That is a difference of $20M over the next 2 years. However assuming a "bare-bones revenue sharing plan," Ralph gets no additional money, while possibly having to spend $20M more over the next 2 years. That eats into profits. And eating into your profits is never a good thing, especially when you need those profits to pay for signing bonuses.

[Larry Playfair]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writ...ents/index.html

 

I thought this added some insight too.

[Lurker]

The Bills revenues will almost certainly increase that much just from normal NFL shared revenues (TV, etc..)

625405[/snapback]

 

And how much do you think their costs are going to rise by over the same period? Top-tier FAs are commanding $12 million SBs today. How much do you think it'll take to sign a marque player in a couple of years?? And that doesn't include other costs, like coaching staffs, etc.

[Lurker]

Here's another bit of news for those who say the new CBA keeps the Bills competitive:

 

http://www.washtimes.com/sports/20060312-020737-9783r.htm

 

"While second-string quarterback isn't a priority, Snyder also sent Redskins One to the Bahamas to bring the vacationing Todd Collins back for a visit. Collins, 34, spent the past five years under current Redskins offensive coordinator Al Saunders in Kansas City, throwing just 27 passes."

[Lurker]

Redskins Hike Cost Of Tickets, Parking

 

By Thomas Heath

Washington Post Staff Writer

Tuesday, March 7, 2006; Page E06

 

The Washington Redskins will raise the price of lower-bowl general-admission seats 39 percent next season, and will increase the cost of parking in the 20,000 parking spaces at FedEx Field from $25 to $35, up 40 percent.

 

Redskins chief operating officer Mitch Gershman said yesterday that this is the team's first general-admission ticket price increase in four years and puts the franchise more in line with the other teams in the area.

 

"We were looking at the competitive landscape and the overall demand for season tickets for the Redskins and we felt that moving them in line was the smart thing to do," Gershman said. "Our lower-bowl seats are still priced at the same or below what other teams are charging, and we still think we have the most outstanding value for sports entertainment in the region."

 

The Redskins' announcement comes two weeks after the Washington Wizards notified some customers that the team was increasing nearly 1,000 choice seats in Verizon Center by 59 percent for next season, from between $110 and $114 per seat this year to $175 per seat next year.

 

The Redskins, which had the fifth-highest average ticket price in the NFL last season, according to team marketing reports, were 10-6 and advanced to the playoffs for the first time since 1999. The Redskins beat the Buccaneers in Tampa Bay in the first round of the playoffs, then lost to the Seahawks in Seattle.

 

The 2006 season-ticket invoices include a significant change from past years. Gershman said invoices for most of the general-admission seats will separate the team's ticket price from the 10 percent Prince George's County sales tax on the ticket. So last year's $79 lower-bowl ticket, which included the tax, has increased to $99 for the ticket plus an additional county tax of about $9.90, making the total $108.90.

 

Upper-bowl seats that were priced between $40 and $60 have gone up between $5 and $11. With tax included, those seats are priced from around $50 to $70.

 

"We just decided to start showing taxes outside so people start knowing what they are paying for their tickets," Gershman said. Season ticket holders started receiving their tickets this week.

 

"It's an extremely ambitious ticket hike," said one season-ticket holder who asked that his name not be used. "They timed the ticket price to go with a time when the team is improving."

 

"I want to know why," said Randy Dyer, a 10-year season ticket holder who lives in McLean and said he will keep his tickets. "I really don't care what the other local sports teams charge."

 

Gershman said the team is reducing the price of hundreds of partially obscured seats from around $50 to the $35 range.

 

Gershman said the Redskins will try to work with fans who want to discuss their seating location and parking options in light of the announced increases. Metro has a stop within walking distance of FedEx Field and is an option for those who don't want to pay $35 to park.

[Pyrite Gal]

Here, let me help you out.  The salary cap this year under the previous CBA was going to be $94.5M, and for the sake of simplicity, let's say it was going to be $96.5M for 2007.  Now it's $102M and next year will be $109M.  That is a difference of $20M over the next 2 years.  However assuming a "bare-bones revenue sharing plan," Ralph gets no additional money, while possibly having to spend $20M more over the next 2 years.  That eats into profits.  And eating into your profits is never a good thing, especially when you need those profits to pay for signing bonuses.

625436[/snapback]

 

Let's be clear about this.

 

1. Yes, the new deal gives a higher % of the total revenue to the players than the old deal (the old DGR figures amounted to around 54% of total revenues going to the NFLPA and now that will go up to 59.5%.

 

2. No, the new deal does not give Ralph NO additional money in revenue sharing, it gives the smller revenue teams less $ than they wanted. The deal calls for a revenue sharing package whose final numbers are not set yet because they depend upon how the independent team businesses do, but it will provide a pooling of $ to the tune of $850-$900+ million by the large revenue teams over the 6 year life of the CBA and its direct distribution based upon income to lower revenue teams.

 

3. Even if the deal does end up eating into the profits (I suspect it will) of lower revenue income teams like the Bills, we should be clear that it will lower the profit level from super huge to merely huge. The Bills and Ralph will rake in less % of $ under the new deal than they would rake in under the old deal compared to the players or the higher revenue teams. However, with even a conservative estimate of the level of growth of revenue expected by the NFL and with a rate of growth in revenue consistent with the real world growth in the past 17 years under labor peace, the BILLS WILL MAKE MORE MONEY UNDER THIS DEAL THAN THEY CURRENTLY MAKE NOW.

 

This deal made sense for the NFL to do because the actual alternative was that they make no money under a work stoppage and that is where this seemed to be headed unless they made a deal.

 

Will the Bills be outspent in terms of acquiring on field talent by the higher revenue teams?

 

Yes, if they are not willing to probably even further reduce the amount of profit they put in their own wallet instead of reinvesting in the team. However, even this spending seems like it can be done by continuing the retraction of their profits from the super huge to the merely huge to even come down to a substantial profit in order to compete on the field with large revenue teams.

 

There is no requirement under law or normal business practice that Ralph and the Bill merely "settle" for making a substantial profit instead of merely a huge profit simply to remain competitive on the field. However, he would be operating as a great sportsman and a good person if he does this.

 

Being a sportsman and continuing to be a good citizen for this community may not be as important to him as being an obscenely profitable businessman. However, I think that being a good sportsman and a good person are important to him and sense he can achieve both these goals and still get a reasonable profit (but not an obscenely huge one) under the new CBA, I think it is a good deal.

[socalfan]

Well, I for one will believe you when you stop pulling numbers out of your AS*. Just show me a copy of the new CBA and the revenue sharing agreement, with the appropriate paragraphs cited. Thanks.

[MadBuffaloDisease]

PG: The new CBA calls for $30M annually to be split among the 17 lowest-revenue-generating teams, and this year has an additional $22.5M to be split among them. So at best, you're looking at a little over $3M a team this year, and a little less than $2M a team thereafter. IOW, bad deal for the majority of the league.