Kelly the Dog Posted April 19, 2006 Posted April 19, 2006 Why are Wilson and Brown the only owners saying anything? How would you as a fan like it if your lower-revenue owner voted yes and later came out and said it was a bad deal? 665687[/snapback] Because they are not mutually exclusive? Because the details haven't been worked out yet? Because not settling a deal before the deadline would have been worse for the low revenue teams? There are a lot of reasons.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted April 19, 2006 Posted April 19, 2006 Because they are not mutually exclusive? Because the details haven't been worked out yet? Because not settling a deal before the deadline would have been worse for the low revenue teams? There are a lot of reasons. As I said before Kelly, the ONE detail that HAS BEEN worked-out, of sorts, is compensation given to the players. The majority of NFL owners caved to the NFLPA by accepting a close to 60% cut of total revenues. That is the crux of the whole problem with the new CBA. If they have stuck to 56.2%, there wouldn't be a hue and cry since th TV money would have more than covered that amount.
FTW_BillsFan Posted April 19, 2006 Posted April 19, 2006 I'm sure the smaller market teams would think that is fair. The large market teams would probably prefer to kick in a specific amount of revenue (say $100 million) and then keep everything after that. In fact, if I were a large market team owner, I would be against revenue sharing completely. It's the salary cap that keeps the teams competitive not the revenue sharing. Determine a salary cap level where 30-35 teams should be able to successfully compete without revenue sharing and move forward. 665420[/snapback] Circle, IMO, there is 1 reason why the NFL is the most popular sport in the US. On any given Sunday, any team can beat any other team. Or another word for it: parity. Parity has given every NFL football fan across the globe hope every Sunday that their favorite team will put up a W. Every week, I can think of ways for Buffalo to win their game. Does it happen most of the time? No, but it is possible, and so I watch. **BTW, no other US sport can currently say that. ** Now, NFL parity is guaranteed by 2 things: 1) Salary Cap and 2) Revenue sharing between the owners. If either of these 2 things get out of whack, then we start having problems; IE. this new CBA and revenue sharing. Now, I have no problem with the new CBA they agreed to, but I have definite problems with the new revenue sharing plan (RSP) the owners have. The new RSP is so lopsided that RW seriously needs to think about moving the team because of it. ** RW isn't a dummy, he can see the writing on the wall and he is trying to keep the team in Buffalo. So we should support him even if he is the only man yelling from the top the mountain. ** A little history: The previous CBA was almost solely based on ticket sales and the HUGE TV contracts. Now, all of this revenue was shared by all of the owners in the league so there was not a money disparity between the teams to pay the players. So the rules of parity were intact. Fast forward to the present. There are a number of issues that will hurt the Bills in the future. 1) The new CBA is based off of ALL NFL revenue. Everything. The amount that Dallas and Washington get from all of their corporate sponsorships and naming rights for the stadium, the field, and anything else Snyder and Jones can auction off to the highest bidder. So for every dollar that the NFL makes 59.5 cents (maximum) will go to the players salaries. 2) The new RSP between the owners does not include sharing of all the revenues from the NFL. I would bet it's the same as before, split the tickets and the TV revenue, but everything else stays with their team. (Now, there is some revenue sharing of the other monies that are made, but it is a very complicated system and will not make up for the difference between the lowest teams and the highest teams.) Now, when you put both of those together, it doesn't take a genius to see that the small market teams are getting the shaft and the beautiful parity of the NFL will not be around for much longer. Or to put it in other words. In a couple of years, Buffalo fans (if we still have a team) will be looking forward more to the NFL draft than the season because we will be a perennial top 10 drafting team with this new deal the way it is structured.
Kelly the Dog Posted April 19, 2006 Posted April 19, 2006 As I said before Kelly, the ONE detail that HAS BEEN worked-out, of sorts, is compensation given to the players. The majority of NFL owners caved to the NFLPA by accepting a close to 60% cut of total revenues. That is the crux of the whole problem with the new CBA. If they have stuck to 56.2%, there wouldn't be a hue and cry since th TV money would have more than covered that amount. 665721[/snapback] It does. The TV deal was 43% more than the last deal. It was WAY more than the NFL predicted it would be. There is still another deal they are selling which will add a few more hundred million to it (a Thursday/Saturday night package). It far, far more than offsets the difference in the revenues. Yes, the players made a great deal for themselves, IMO. Yes, the owners backed themselves into a position of weakness and not strength. But there is billions of dollars to go around and the small market teams will be able to compete. Otherwise, you would hear a LOT more sniping and complaining and wrangling.
FTW_BillsFan Posted April 19, 2006 Posted April 19, 2006 As I said before Kelly, the ONE detail that HAS BEEN worked-out, of sorts, is compensation given to the players. The majority of NFL owners caved to the NFLPA by accepting a close to 60% cut of total revenues. That is the crux of the whole problem with the new CBA. If they have stuck to 56.2%, there wouldn't be a hue and cry since th TV money would have more than covered that amount. 665721[/snapback] 56.2, 60.... The difference is really insignificant to the more underlying issue of not sharing monies and disparity between the haves and havenots. Even in the old system, ppl always wondered how Snyder could get away with signing all of those players... well it came down to one thing. Signing bonus. That guys was making so much more money than *almost* any other team he could throw lavish signing bonuses on these guys and it wouldn't even phase him. He's paying his defensive coordinator *greg williams* 2.5 Mil/yr. Who else can do that? No one. Also, in the new CBA the are counting all NFL revenue and not tickets and the TV contract that was the basis of the old CBA.
Pyrite Gal Posted April 19, 2006 Posted April 19, 2006 56.2, 60.... The difference is really insignificant to the more underlying issue of not sharing monies and disparity between the haves and havenots. Even in the old system, ppl always wondered how Snyder could get away with signing all of those players... well it came down to one thing. Signing bonus. That guys was making so much more money than *almost* any other team he could throw lavish signing bonuses on these guys and it wouldn't even phase him. He's paying his defensive coordinator *greg williams* 2.5 Mil/yr. Who else can do that? No one. Also, in the new CBA the are counting all NFL revenue and not tickets and the TV contract that was the basis of the old CBA. 665727[/snapback] Look America is all about the haves and the have-nots. Under a free-market system, the teams that perform better do better and the teams that do perform as well or badly enough go out of business or move to markets which serve more people. The NFL developed a system where they did not invest in a free-market of individuals improving the overall product through competition. Instead they have embraced a collaborative system based on large scale sharing of revenue and costs. The system actually is based on activities which are downright un-American like restraints of trade fostered through the draft and through banning teams from signing players they might judge to be good enough to invest in because they hsve not graduated from college (while other American sports profit through us being entertained by 16 year olds if they are good enough to play). In some ways, the Bills or lower revemue teams are a victim of a system which though it has rejected pretty fully a free-market individual approach has not fully embraced a system which takes care of the weaker market teams. In for a penny in for a pound. However, the NFL and its partners in the NFLPA (they are pretty clearly the majority partners now getting 59.5% of all revenues, but this is reasonable since few would pay to see Al Davis square off against Ralph on Sunday) have apparently decided that though they reject the free-market approach they do not fully embrace a collaborative approach that would save historic particiants like the Bills who serve low-revenue markets.
FTW_BillsFan Posted April 20, 2006 Posted April 20, 2006 Look America is all about the haves and the have-nots. Under a free-market system, the teams that perform better do better and the teams that do perform as well or badly enough go out of business or move to markets which serve more people. The NFL developed a system where they did not invest in a free-market of individuals improving the overall product through competition. Instead they have embraced a collaborative system based on large scale sharing of revenue and costs. The system actually is based on activities which are downright un-American like restraints of trade fostered through the draft and through banning teams from signing players they might judge to be good enough to invest in because they hsve not graduated from college (while other American sports profit through us being entertained by 16 year olds if they are good enough to play). In some ways, the Bills or lower revemue teams are a victim of a system which though it has rejected pretty fully a free-market individual approach has not fully embraced a system which takes care of the weaker market teams. In for a penny in for a pound. However, the NFL and its partners in the NFLPA (they are pretty clearly the majority partners now getting 59.5% of all revenues, but this is reasonable since few would pay to see Al Davis square off against Ralph on Sunday) have apparently decided that though they reject the free-market approach they do not fully embrace a collaborative approach that would save historic particiants like the Bills who serve low-revenue markets. 665734[/snapback] While I don't disagree with you that the NFL is not based on a free market system totally, there is Free Agency later in a players career. Also, if you want to see a system that is closest to a 'pure' free market system look at MLB. I'm sure the Royals and Rockies fans are hyped for this season. Could you imagine the chaos and how bad the NFL on-field product would become if anyone (no age restriction) would be allowed. This doesn't even include the idea of not having a draft. For a good example of this is the NBA. When they were letting in all of those high schoolers, the game also changed into more of a streetball version AND alot of those high schoolers were not physically ready for the NBA, but they were already 7'1" and they would be ready in 2-3 yrs. Potential, they drafted off of potential. Teams found out quickly with a roster of 13? they couldn't draft projects and still field a good team. Even though football fields a team of 53, they do not have 'extra' spots for projects. They use them all. But I'm getting off of the subject here. I do not see the CBA and the owner revenue sharing as inclusive. I'm happy that the players threw the owners under the bus, but it was the owners fault because they are stupid and dragged their own revenue sharing plan for so long....ie. the rich owners are greedy. The NFL has been sharing revenue for decades. Long before the old CBA was in existance. They realized long ago that all of the franchises needed to be viable to be successful. Now with new ownership, they don't see it that way. They don't care where the franchise is as long as it's pulling in tons of money. I bet that if Snyder or Jones was the owner of the Bills, the Bills would have left for LA a LONG time ago because the money is better there. They have no loyalty to anyone but themselves and money. This should be another reason why ppl should be backing RW instead of saying he is senile and why is he the only one yelling about this?
CircleTheWagons Posted April 20, 2006 Posted April 20, 2006 I do not see the CBA and the owner revenue sharing as inclusive. I'm happy that the players threw the owners under the bus, but it was the owners fault because they are stupid and dragged their own revenue sharing plan for so long....ie. the rich owners are greedy. The NFL has been sharing revenue for decades. Long before the old CBA was in existance. They realized long ago that all of the franchises needed to be viable to be successful. Now with new ownership, they don't see it that way. They don't care where the franchise is as long as it's pulling in tons of money. 666274[/snapback] I wouldn't be so happy until it's determined which owners were thrown under the bus. It could be Ralph under the wheels. From a rich owner's perspective, Ralph is the greedy one, expecting to use their profits to meet his expenses. To the rich owners, Ralph isn't carrying his weight. It's like a group project and Ralph is sitting in the corner pouting but still expects to get an equal share of the credit. Tying the salary cap to overall revenues without revenue sharing will kill teams like the Bills. Using revenue sharing frustrates owners that are legitimately trying to maximize their return and unfairly subsidizes teams that don't try to maximize returns. The salary cap needs to be set based on a different criteria that would allow all of the franchises to compete without revenue sharing. This would significantly increase the value of teams generating the most revenue and lower the value of teams with less revenue, which sounds reasonable to me. If the Bills make $10,000,000 a year and the Cowboys make $100,000,000 year then the Cowboys should be worth 10X the Bills. It doesn't mean that the Bills can't compete against the Cowboys but the Bills' franchise is probably worth $120,000,000 instead of $600,000,000.
colin Posted April 20, 2006 Posted April 20, 2006 having bigger teams pay more to other teams is bullsh!t. they should have it just they way they did before, X% (perhaps a bigger chunk than before) of shared revenues, with teams keeping their own extras. the skins can afford more for coaching, but they CANNOT afford more for bonuses because they are under the same cap as everyone else. the bills since 1989 were in the top 3 for paying bonus money out for a long long time and when the cap came in they were miles over it. the cap still isn't so high that teams can't to pay it all.
FTW_BillsFan Posted April 20, 2006 Posted April 20, 2006 I wouldn't be so happy until it's determined which owners were thrown under the bus. It could be Ralph under the wheels. From a rich owner's perspective, Ralph is the greedy one, expecting to use their profits to meet his expenses. To the rich owners, Ralph isn't carrying his weight. It's like a group project and Ralph is sitting in the corner pouting but still expects to get an equal share of the credit. Tying the salary cap to overall revenues without revenue sharing will kill teams like the Bills. Using revenue sharing frustrates owners that are legitimately trying to maximize their return and unfairly subsidizes teams that don't try to maximize returns. The salary cap needs to be set based on a different criteria that would allow all of the franchises to compete without revenue sharing. This would significantly increase the value of teams generating the most revenue and lower the value of teams with less revenue, which sounds reasonable to me. If the Bills make $10,000,000 a year and the Cowboys make $100,000,000 year then the Cowboys should be worth 10X the Bills. It doesn't mean that the Bills can't compete against the Cowboys but the Bills' franchise is probably worth $120,000,000 instead of $600,000,000. 666319[/snapback] Circle, First off, they all threw themselves under the bus by dragging their feet with revenue sharing. The owners couldn't/wouldn't agree on the new CBA until the revenue sharing issue was resolved (now we know it's still not resolved). So, they waited until the last second, agree to whatever they agree to in their meeting for revenue sharing and then agreed on the CBA. They all basically F'ed themselves, which was my point on that. I really don't care how they implement it, but the playing field needs to be level and everyone can compete if the NFL wants to stay on top of the US sports landscape. With this new revenue sharing plan, the landscape will be highly tilted to the high revenue owners.
CircleTheWagons Posted April 20, 2006 Posted April 20, 2006 So, they waited until the last second, agree to whatever they agree to in their meeting for revenue sharing and then agreed on the CBA. They all basically F'ed themselves, which was my point on that. I really don't care how they implement it, but the playing field needs to be level and everyone can compete if the NFL wants to stay on top of the US sports landscape. With this new revenue sharing plan, the landscape will be highly tilted to the high revenue owners. 666463[/snapback] I think we agree that the immediate problem is that the owners agreed too quickly on the new salary cap formula, but until the revenue sharing is ironed out, it's tough to say that anyone got screwed. Perhaps the rich owners will agree to share more revenue enabling small market teams to still spend to the cap. A simple formula would be that any team spending less than 60% of their overall revenue on salaries dumps the additional money into a league pool that is then distributed to teams needing to spend over 60% of their revenue on salaries. Salaries should then stay close to 60% of every teams revenue matching revenue sharing with the CBA. Long-term though, my concern is that the Bills days are numbered if they require handouts from other teams to be successful. As long as the "rich" owners have to subsidize the poor teams they are going to look for ways to eliminate/move them so that they can retain their money.
Recommended Posts