Revenue Sharing PASSES:30-2 (Ralph voted FOR it!)

[buffalobillsfootball]

Bengals against revenue plan

BY MARK CURNUTTE | MCURNUTTE@ENQUIRER.COM

 

PHOENIX -NFL owners voted 30-2 this morning - with the Bengals and Jacksonville Jaguars voting no -to adopt a four-year supplemental revenue sharing plan and terms of how teams qualify for it.

 

The plan is intended to help the NFL maintain competitive balance among teams located in big markets and small markets alike.

 

The amount of money the Bengals will receive and when has not been determined, Bengals president Mike Brown said after a meeting at the Arizona Biltmore.

 

A list of “qualifiers” will reduce how much teams will receive.

 

One qualifier is playing in a stadium that is less than 10 years old. Brown said the Bengals are hit with a 44 percent reduction in revenue sharing because Paul Brown Stadium is entering its eighth year of operation.

 

“The qualifiers are a reduction in the subsidy, and in our case, this program will reduce any subsidy we would receive under the new program by exactly 44 percent,” he said. “Why that number is so exact … I don’t know. But that’s how it works out.”

 

The plan is retroactive to 2006 and will continue through 2009, Houston Texans owner Bob McNair said. The vote last March in Dallas to extend the league’s collective bargaining agreement with the players’ union called for additional revenue sharing.

 

“Nobody is happy,” McNair said. “Some (teams) think they are giving too much. Some (teams) think they are receiving too little. So, I guess, maybe it’s a good deal that way.”

 

The top 15 revenue-producing teams – almost all of them in the NFL’s largest markets, such as Washington, Philadelphia, New York, Houston and Boston – will pay into the pool. Teams such as the Bengals, Buffalo, Jacksonville and Minnesota – which ranks last in team revenue – are among the 17 that will receive money.

 

New England Patriots owner Bob Kraft called the agreement important and said owners must unify after becoming fractured last year during talks to extend the labor agreement.

 

The issue is complicated, and more details will be available later today when NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell or one of his spokesmen addresses the media.

 

Essentially, there is an undeniable growing rift in team revenue between teams in large and small markets in the NFL. The cause is increased unshared revenue streams generated by large-market teams with new stadiums – such as Washington, New England and Philadelphia.

 

The growing gap in revenue threatens the competitive balance that has helped the NFL grow into the nation’s top spectator sport with revenues around $6 billion.

 

Shared revenue is the major reason teams in small markets such as Cincinnati, Green Bay, Jacksonville, Kansas City and Buffalo have been able to compete with teams in large cities such as New York. Major League Baseball, by comparison, does not have extensive revenue sharing, and teams in many small markets – including Cincinnati – face a competitive disadvantage because of limited payroll.

 

Brown said last month that the Bengals might not be able to compete well into the future unless core issues of revenue disparity were addressed.

 

With his no vote and comments today, he said the measure is a short-term solution.

 

“I don’t favor it. It’s a stopgap solution,” Brown said this morning. “We have deeper problems than qualifiers. We have problems with subsidies in the league.”

 

Brown said teams in the NFL have been subsidized through stadium loans and grants to teams.

[OnTheRocks]

I wonder if the Bengals and Jaguars ownership groups will be thrown under the bus by the Mike and Mike show and all the other ESPN losers tomorrow morning the way they did to Ralph last year.

[JoeF]

This would not have happened without Ralph's badgering and lobbying. Say what you want about our owner...but if he didn't wage the public campaign he did (almost single handedly)--this would not have happened.

 

The devil is in the details--but I hope a big step has been taken to insure the near term future of this franchise in WNY.

 

Thanks Ralph...Thanks Senator Schumer...Thanks Tim Russert and everyone else who influenced..

[Kelly the Dog]

That's actually very good news, that Ralph voted for it. It looks like he and Shumer's complaining worked pretty damn decent. Wait to go, Ralphie boy.

[apuszczalowski]

So basically Brown is against it becasue they are limited to how much they get because they have a new stadium. You must not be in that bad of shape financially if you could afford to build a new stadium recently

[SHOUTBOX MONSTER!]

That's actually very good news, that Ralph voted for it.

 

Ralph was on the committee that developed the proposal. He would've looked really idiotic if he didn't vote for something he helped create.

[JoeF]

So basically Brown is against it becasue they are limited to how much they get because they have a new stadium. You must not be in that bad of shape financially if you could afford to build a new stadium recently

 

Especially when the team paid about $45 Million of a $270 Million project......

[Kelly the Dog]

Ralph was on the committee that developed the proposal. He would've looked really idiotic if he didn't vote for something he helped create.

So were the two guys that voted no. What it means to me is that he got everything he wanted, otherwise he would have thrown a fit and refused to play shuffleboard with these guys for the whole weekend.

[SHOUTBOX MONSTER!]

So were the two guys that voted no. What it means to me is that he got everything he wanted, otherwise he would have thrown a fit and refused to play shuffleboard with these guys for the whole weekend.

 

Actually, they were not.

 

"Along with the Bills, the committee consists of the New York Giants, St. Louis Rams, Detroit Lions, Cleveland Browns, Seattle Seahawks, Green Bay Packers and Houston Texans."

[erynthered]

I'm sure RW looked at it going through the 09' season, thinking he may not be alive. And also it helps the value of his team. Nice set up for him. I think he starts shopping the club.

 

Good Job Ralphie!

[JoeF]

I'm sure RW looked at it going through the 09' season, thinking he may not be alive. And also it helps the value of his team. Nice set up for him. I think he starts shopping the club.

 

Good Job Ralphie!

 

 

Absolutely shops it now--but local ownership is more of a possibility with some financial foundation.

 

The other clause that I am hearing is about percent of capacity of the stadium...i.e. if you don't sell 90% of your tickets--you also get reduced revenue under the sharing agreement. This is an incentive to put a quality product on the field.

 

I think I like that Roger Goddell grew up in Jamestown--another very smart move by the NFL--now if they can just take care of the retired players a bit better...

[Nostradamus]

Actually, they were not.

 

"Along with the Bills, the committee consists of the New York Giants, St. Louis Rams, Detroit Lions, Cleveland Browns, Seattle Seahawks, Green Bay Packers and Houston Texans."

Interesting. Did Ralph throw his one comrade in arms (Mike Brown) and other small market teams under the bus so that the qualifiers favored HIS small market team at the expense of other small markets?? Don't get me wrong, I'm happy about any news that isn't doom and gloom when it pertains to the Bills long term viability in Buffalo. However, while Ralph espoused pure alturistic motives in lauding the pioneer unified spirit that the NFL was founded upon, I would venture to say that his motives are in fact paralell to those of the Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyders of the NFL: to maximize profit in THEIR own markets. This was never us-against them, small markets vs. big markets. This was about each owners independent desire to make as many millions as possible.

[erynthered]

Absolutely shops it now--but local ownership is more of a possibility with some financial foundation.

 

The other clause that I am hearing is about percent of capacity of the stadium...i.e. if you don't sell 90% of your tickets--you also get reduced revenue under the sharing agreement. This is an incentive to put a quality product on the field.

 

I think I like that Roger Goddell grew up in Jamestown--another very smart move by the NFL--now if they can just take care of the retired players a bit better...

 

 

I didn't hear that on the 90% thingy, Joe. But I suppose that makes sense to have some disclaimers in the wording of the agreement. After all, the Big boys dont want to share if you're not producing enough revenue. Nice point Joe........

[Kelly the Dog]

Actually, they were not.

 

"Along with the Bills, the committee consists of the New York Giants, St. Louis Rams, Detroit Lions, Cleveland Browns, Seattle Seahawks, Green Bay Packers and Houston Texans."

I take it back. I thought I had read that Cinci and Jax were the last two teams added. Still, it probably shows that Ralph got what he needed. I know, for example, that he was worried that the Bills wouldnt get some of the money because their stadium and attendance was one of the biggest. But that apparently is no longer part of it, and the stadium thing is how old it is, which the Bills will then get compensated. Thanks for pointing that out though, you were right.

[stuckincincy]

So basically Brown is against it becasue they are limited to how much they get because they have a new stadium. You must not be in that bad of shape financially if you could afford to build a new stadium recently

 

He...most...built nothing...few do. There is a tax assessed on every sale in this county - house or a taco or a cup of coffee, also a large outstanding bond debenture and an agreed-to legality that gives Brown a guarantee for upgrades to his free palace if any other palace gets some goodies. Bills getting a new display? Mikey gets a new one and the multi-million cost gets added onto the backs of the residents.

 

I didn't live in this County when the stadium funding vote was on the ballot and so couldn't vote when they gave Brown this sweet thing.

 

I would have voted against it and wished them well. If Brown and B'gals left...bye-bye.

[MDH]

Absolutely shops it now--but local ownership is more of a possibility with some financial foundation.

 

The other clause that I am hearing is about percent of capacity of the stadium...i.e. if you don't sell 90% of your tickets--you also get reduced revenue under the sharing agreement. This is an incentive to put a quality product on the field.

 

 

Does it count if you tarp off thousands of seats like Jax does?

[eball]

Not bad for a doddering old fool. Way to go, Ralphie boy! You took on the nouveau riche and got them to listen...congrats! Now build us a Super Bowl winner!

[Kelly the Dog]

The plan will keep the Bills right here in Western New York

- Charles Shumer

 

http://www.wgrz.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=46584

[JoeF]

Does it count if you tarp off thousands of seats like Jax does?

 

 

Not sure MDH--Here is the ESPN article from which I gleaned this information:

 

Its a Lenny P special--pertinent paragraph is bolded...

 

 

 

PHOENIX -- In a week in which the headline item will be the way in which the NFL plans to deal with player misconduct, the manner in which it conducts its business in terms of sharing revenues between franchises will be among the most contentious issues during the annual league meetings here.

 

When owners approved an extension to the collective bargaining agreement last March, a key element of the plan was an enhanced revenue sharing plan that, over a six-year period, would redistribute about $900 million from big- to small-market franchises. A year later, however, there is still no agreement on how the additional dollars will be meted out, which teams get it, and under what circumstances.

 

While it remains an issue that isn't of interest to most fans, revenue sharing clearly is the most fractious item on this week's agenda here.

 

"From the public standpoint," acknowledged the owner of one AFC small-market team, "it's basically a silent issue. Most fans would say, 'Hey, it's just a bunch of rich guys trying to figure out who gets what part of the golden goose.' But I can tell you, it's not a quiet issue in the meeting rooms. There's still a ton of [discord] over it. There's a lot of hard feeling."

 

Indeed, the disparity between the NFL's high- and low-revenue teams continues to grow. And the owners from the low-revenue franchises insist they are, more than ever, feeling the pinch of trying to compete against teams with bulging coffers. The low-revenue teams insist that, in terms of player costs, they pay a higher percentage than their high-revenue colleagues. The big-market teams have countered that smaller franchises haven't done enough to market themselves at the local level and, thus, produce more revenues.

 

In an effort to bridge the gap, a league committee has been working for the past year on developing a set of "qualifiers" which essentially would be the criteria that determine which teams receive extra revenue-sharing benefits, and how much. The committee, though, has been slow to act. And even after a Sunday meeting here in which the committee appeared ready to propose a framework for the qualifiers, there was considerable uncertainty about whether they will be approved.

 

Under one of the proposed qualifiers, ESPN.com confirmed, a team, even in a small market, would receive less money if it had been in its current stadium for less than 10 years. One AFC owner said that qualifier would reduce by more than 40 percent the amount of revenue sharing that his club would receive. Another qualifier would reduce revenue sharing for teams that did not play to 90 percent of capacity in their home stadiums.

 

Notable, too, is that the revenue sharing plan is being proposed for only four years. That could signal that several owners who feel the league gave away too much to its players in the extension to the collective bargaining agreement will exercise an option to re-open what they consider a disadvantageous deal before it runs its full term.

 

It will take a vote of three-quarters of the owners, or 24 of 32, to pass any revenue-sharing plan. Owners from both camps acknowledged Monday they don't know if the votes are there to ratify the plan, and that it might fall to commissioner Roger Goodell to make some sort of move that might ameliorate both factions.

 

Len Pasquarelli is a senior writer for ESPN.com

[The Dean]

That's actually very good news, that Ralph voted for it. It looks like he and Shumer's complaining worked pretty damn decent. Wait to go, Ralphie boy.

 

 

Remember the "Ralph's senile" jokes when he was the lone dissenter in the last agreement. I wonder how many of those talk show asswipes and pundits will step up and admit maybe the old man was right after all.