stuckincincy Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 Article by Mark Curnutte, Cincinnati Enquirer 03/30/08... http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...300424/1066/SPT
ExWNYer Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 Article by Mark Curnutte, Cincinnati Enquirer 03/30/08... http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...300424/1066/SPT Gives you a real "warm and fuzzy" as a Bills fan, doesn't it? Douchebags like Jones, Kraft, and Snyder won't be satisfied until they've killed the proverbial goose that laid the golden egg. The NFL is currently the most watched and richest, major sports league yet these "visionaries" want to re-invent the wheel. And not for the good of the league but for their own selfish gain. Don't want to work hard by putting a good front office with talent evaluating skills in place? Don't want to have the satisfaction of beating out your competition on your superior merits? No problem. Just out spend them, plain and simple. These twits are like the rich kid who's not smart enough or talented enough to get into school so daddy simply buys off the administrators to secure junior's entry. If these morons get their way and strong-arm their beliefs into reality, the next owner of the Bills will have no choice but to move the team to greener pastures. Have fun rooting for only the same four or five teams with a chance to win it all every year, NFL fans.
Arkady Renko Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 The Jones, Krafts and Snyders of the league think that somehow it is unfair for them to share their revenues, however they should remember that the league protects their home markets from any competition and that the competitive balance is key to the popularity and growth of the league.
BillsVet Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 Good article. There's only one item I take issue with: IMO, small markets can remain viable without free for all spending. Indy won the SB just over a year ago and despite lower revenues than bigger markets, they've managed to hand out big contracts to Manning, Freeney, Sanders, Clark, and others. In order to do this, small market teams need great front office decision makers. Without them, they end up like the Bengals and make consistently bad decisions all over the place. Indy has Polian, and this is the difference between successful and unsuccessful. One option the owners should consider is giving smaller markets more draft picks, something akin to what MLB does when another team signs their FA's. Give them compensatory picks between the first and second or otherwise whenever someone signs their FA's. Only in this situation, teams would give up their picks in the third, second, or even first round if they sign a certain level FA. I'm sure even Jerry Jones realizes he can't buy every player and must be efficient on draft day. The union would take issue, and the idea wouldn't leave the drawing board. Jerry Jones is spending like a wild man because he wants to win. Fine. But Dallas hasn't won anything since the mid 90s, and spending money never equates to winning. I'm a Yankees fan, and well aware that it's no guarantee. So let Jones spend and continue to lose. In the last 10 years Dallas has won 10+ games only 3 times, and remains 0-5 in the playoffs. The owners messed up and the union got the upper hand. If they can't compromise on something more even between them, a lockout looms even larger. I just can't see the union giving their newfound winnings back anytime soon, work stoppage or not. Upshaw doesn't do business like that.
Snorom Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 I think ALL revenues from everything should go into a big fund and then be distributed equally between the 32 teams. With the NFL itself slicng a % off the top for administration/league purposes if a certain team cannot bring in a minimum amount of revenue determined through a formula of how much money is coming in and at what percentage a team is bringing in then that team should be forced to either improve revenue generation or be moved. finding the balance of lower revenue generating teams to higher revenue generating teams would always be an issue though. And lets face it my idea is not the most capitalistic idea in the world, but capitalism itself is starting to show signs of deterioration between the haves and have nots. and Of course this will never happen, and the league will deteriorate more over the next decade IMO. A few teams personal greed is much more important then the well being of the league, or of those who are struggling to afford daily expeditures let alone a little entertainment. Does anyone think baseball is a good example of what the NFL should end up like... with a few teams outbidding the rest for the top FA's that would make a big difference ot the rest of the league
socalfan Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 Wow $102 million TV revenues and $116 million salary cap. With new stadiums in Indy, NY and Arizonia that gap will be growing pretty fast. So to make up the current $14 million a year and probably $30 million a year by 2010 I gues Ralph better start thinking about moving the team to a bigger market. OH Wait! maybe that is what this Toronto stuff is all about. Maybe he isn't so senile, or dumb, or cheap, or.....
zonabb Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 I think ALL revenues from everything should go into a big fund and then be distributed equally between the 32 teams. With the NFL itself slicng a % off the top for administration/league purposes if a certain team cannot bring in a minimum amount of revenue determined through a formula of how much money is coming in and at what percentage a team is bringing in then that team should be forced to either improve revenue generation or be moved. finding the balance of lower revenue generating teams to higher revenue generating teams would always be an issue though. And lets face it my idea is not the most capitalistic idea in the world, but capitalism itself is starting to show signs of deterioration between the haves and have nots. and Of course this will never happen, and the league will deteriorate more over the next decade IMO. A few teams personal greed is much more important then the well being of the league, or of those who are struggling to afford daily expeditures let alone a little entertainment. Does anyone think baseball is a good example of what the NFL should end up like... with a few teams outbidding the rest for the top FA's that would make a big difference ot the rest of the league I think that's basically socialism and anathema to free market economics. Basically, you can't fault these guys for wanting more, but at the same time, they should realize that the value of the league and their teams is based on its competitiveness, widespread popularity and actualy have oppponents each week. I think in a perfect world, the NFL wants 32 teams that are in the top 32 most economically viable market (don't confuse populate with economic viability, they are not necessarily positively correlated). Unfortunately, Buffalo, Detriot, Cleveland and Pittsburgh continue to bleed people (see recent story about population loss in the Northeast comapred to growth in the southeast and west) and businesses/jobs. In reality, the league has major problems in these four cities, plus some others. The reality then is that the league needs to ensure that it has a system in place to allow these teams to remain viable in the face of economic issues in many cities. The NFL can never become like MLB. MLB is a joke in terms of competition and stupidly, they never try to fix it. The attempt with the luxury tax is a joke, which allows team to spend over a limit but pay a penalty. So the same markets that are the problem (Boston and NY) continue to spend and pay the luxuty tax and use the rest of MLB as their farm team. If the NFL went to a system like that, the Bills should leave, unless everyone likes the idea of being the Kansas City Royals of the NFL. It'll never happen though because the NFL by nature is a short season, 16 games, every game means something anfd that works for ticket sales and marketing. No one cares about a MLB in April in Minnesota. Structurally and scheduling wise, no one touches the NFL. So instead of shooting themselves in the foot, they shold find something that works. Sadly, greed is pervasive and these 3 jerkoffs would kill their own young to make a buck. Lastly, it's interesting that Jerry Jones was able (not sure if the story mentioned it) to get $300+ million from the city to build his new stadium. And is he sell all the seats and suite licenses as expected, he leaves after season one with ZERO debt load on the stadium! Imagine the ego on this guy if he can secure tax dollars for a team everyone knew was never leaving!
Sisyphean Bills Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 It's kind of like joining a club where they have this golden goose under lock and key. Just lays golden eggs over and over and over and everybody is living large. But then some clowns get in the club and they get their keys to the closet. So, they hatch a plan to get more and bigger golden eggs faster. They start force feeding the goose from a fire hose and squeezing and wringing it and screaming at it. "Why won't the damn goose lay more golden eggs?", they wonder. So, they hatch a plan and drag the golden goose out in the street. The plan is flawless. They will wring every last ounce of golden egg out of the damn goose. As a couple of conspirators tie the goose down in the middle of the street, the others come riding a steamroller down the street, singing songs, waving flags, blowing trumpets, and throwing their empty whiskey bottles at bystanders.
Dan Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 It's kind of like joining a club where they have this golden goose under lock and key. Just lays golden eggs over and over and over and everybody is living large. But then some clowns get in the club and they get their keys to the closet. So, they hatch a plan to get more and bigger golden eggs faster. They start force feeding the goose from a fire hose and squeezing and wringing it and screaming at it. "Why won't the damn goose lay more golden eggs?", they wonder. So, they hatch a plan and drag the golden goose out in the street. The plan is flawless. They will wring every last ounce of golden egg out of the damn goose. As a couple of conspirators tie the goose down in the middle of the street, the others come riding a steamroller down the street, singing songs, waving flags, blowing trumpets, and throwing their empty whiskey bottles at bystanders. uuuhhhhh... yeah. Its just like that. I think uhhh... whaa ?
MattM Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 I'm not surprised at all by this article. It just lays out the truth that people here knew (or should have known) for years. Unfortunately, I find it highly likely that at some point the NFL will go uncapped or the cap will rise so high that many teams won't be able to spend up to it. If you think about it, the only folks against that are the small market owners--the big market owners want that, as do the players. The MLB-ization of the NFL will be sad and will ultimately, I think, destroy the NFL. Look at what it's done for MLB over the last 20 years. Remember when there was a Monday night baseball game on ABC and NBC had a Sat. afternoon game? Considering baseball's ratings, that seems laughable now to have a prime time baseball game on a major network that wasn't a playoff game. I'd wager it would finish with about the same ratings as a rerun of "The Gilmore Girls" and MLB has no one to blame but themselves considering how popular a sport it was in the late 1970s. Now, unless you're a Yankees or Red Sox fan, who cares, and their ratings show that. Popularity of a sport isn't guaranteed and without competitive balance in the NFL it risks the same fate. The League's crown jewels are those TV contracts and with low ratings, they won't be worth anywhere near what they are now with folks all over the country psyched up about their teams. Coincidentally, I was arguing about this on a Pats fan board this morning--he was of course of the mindset of "F" the small market teams. What I thought really funny was his insistence that Bob Kraft was really a compromiser who has helped out the small market teams--I have no idea where he got that idea and asked him several times for links to back this up, but got nothing each time. While this may be sacrilege to some here, if an uncapped league (or a meaninglessly capped league) happens I must admit that part of me wouldn't mind seeing the Bills sold to a Toronto multi-billionaire willing to spend money on the team and, if he's smart, make a nod at least to Buffalo by (a) building his new stadium 30-45 minutes south of Toronto (i.e, close enough for B'lo fans to get to the games, too), (b) play 1-2 home games a year in Buffalo and © calling the team something like the "Niagara Frontier Bills" in order to capture the idea that the team is a regional one. It may be the only way that the Bills could be competitive--question is, is it worth the price of "losing" the team in some sense. Like many of you who've grown up with the Bills in WNY, a move would tear me up in some ways, but I think that Toronto is a heckuva lot better than LA, where I'd previously figured they'd end up after Ralph's passing. I must also admit that this is all easier for me to say, as I live in NYC now and fly up for the occasional game, and could do so just as easily to Toronto. Still, as a native Rochesterian, it would also pain me more than folks in Buffalo in some sense, as that distance, while doable for people from B'lo may be a lot tougher for folks coming from Roch. Some tough issues here--I fear the NFL will kill the golden egg laying goose, as I trust the current head honchos on Park Avenue about as far as I can thrown them on issues like this. It's no secret that Goodell was the choice of the large market owners and I suspect that he'll follow his bosses' dictates on this issue.....
Arkady Renko Posted March 31, 2008 Posted March 31, 2008 Newsflash: the NFL is not a free market. If it was, there would be like 7 teams in New York. Entrance is restricted and protects those in the larger markets.
stuckincincy Posted March 31, 2008 Author Posted March 31, 2008 Additional Cincinnati Enquirer article, by Mark Curnutte 03/31/08 "Reservations confirmed - 'No' votes by Bengals, Bills on labor deal look good in hindsight." http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...PT02/803310337/
K-9 Posted March 31, 2008 Posted March 31, 2008 Newsflash: the NFL is not a free market. If it was, there would be like 7 teams in New York. Entrance is restricted and protects those in the larger markets. Great point! And their anti-trust exemption sure helps, too. GO BILLS!!!
UConn James Posted March 31, 2008 Posted March 31, 2008 I think ALL revenues from everything should go into a big fund and then be distributed equally between the 32 teams. With the NFL itself slicng a % off the top for administration/league purposes if a certain team cannot bring in a minimum amount of revenue determined through a formula of how much money is coming in and at what percentage a team is bringing in then that team should be forced to either improve revenue generation or be moved. finding the balance of lower revenue generating teams to higher revenue generating teams would always be an issue though. And lets face it my idea is not the most capitalistic idea in the world, but capitalism itself is starting to show signs of deterioration between the haves and have nots. and Of course this will never happen, and the league will deteriorate more over the next decade IMO. A few teams personal greed is much more important then the well being of the league, or of those who are struggling to afford daily expeditures let alone a little entertainment. Does anyone think baseball is a good example of what the NFL should end up like... with a few teams outbidding the rest for the top FA's that would make a big difference ot the rest of the league I guess communism = "not the most capitalistic" There will never be 32 equal revenue markets in the US. There just can't be. Some owners will make relatively more $, some owners will make relatively less, just based on demographics. How 'bout we let individual owners of franchises decide what they want to do with their teams? If the NFL goes the way of MLB, so be it. If the little guy is priced out of going to games, so be it. Popularity will drop along with revenues and people can choose to spend their $ elsewhere... and maybe on something more productive than the opportunity to watch grown men in plastic shells hit each other senseless. <shrug>
Arkady Renko Posted March 31, 2008 Posted March 31, 2008 The NFL needs to give SOME incentive to teams to maximize their revenues, but at the same time there needs to be effective revenue sharing coupled with a salary cap that ensures competitive balance. There are plenty of options available to accomplish both without complete pain. The owners could give more guaranteed salary in the standard player contract in exchange for less league revenues. Luxury boxes could be treated just like any other seats in a stadium and split in the same way between the visiting and home teams. Signing bonuses could be included in the salary cap when paid... It should not be hard for "smart" owners in the NFL to find creative ways to reach compromises among themselves and with the players. Of course these same "smart" owners seem unable to negotiate something as simple as how much they get for the NFL Network on cable systems.
Bflojohn Posted March 31, 2008 Posted March 31, 2008 The answer is a subdued YES, the competitive balance is going bye-bye people, IF this happens! Unless the owners lockout the players like the NHL did with their rank and file, THAT alone is the only solution, to me, that will keep this league "as is" going forward!
Sisyphean Bills Posted April 1, 2008 Posted April 1, 2008 uuuhhhhh... yeah. Its just like that. I think uhhh... whaa ? Legacy. If you're in it for the "what can I get now", then your legacy is likely to be "The Fuktard that killed the golden goose." Jones heads up the Fuktard Klub.
Recommended Posts