KRC Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 It looks like Dan Rooney will be getting the Steelers after all. There were reports earlier in the year that the team would be sold outside of the Rooney family, but it looks like Dan Rooney will still retain ownership of the team. IMO, this is good news. I like Dan. I spent 45 minutes talking to him in his office last year, and you couldn't meet a nicer person. (If you want to see an impressive building, just walk through the hallways at their administrative offices. The glass room with the Lombardi trophies was awe-inspiring.) Good for Dan!! Linky Thingy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. Rich Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 That is excellent news. Unlike the Browns, the Rooneys show that a family run team can not only be successful, but profitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted November 12, 2008 Author Share Posted November 12, 2008 That is excellent news. Unlike the Browns, the Rooneys show that a family run team can not only be successful, but profitable. Exactly. This also addresses another point that keeps being brought up here and that is community ownership of the team. One of the two reasons that the NFL is forcing this sale is that no owner had 30 percent of the shares in the team. There is no way they will allow a team to not have a majority owner anymore. If all the NFL cared about was the gambling aspect with the Rooney brothers, then there would be no need for the sale, since the two brothers have already (or nearly) divested all of their gambling interests. This is about majority ownership of an NFL team. It is what I have been saying all along: The NFL will never change their Constitution to allow community ownership. The proof is in the forcing of the sale of the Steelers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandler#81 Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 Glad to hear this as well. Having lived in 9 different states now (I'm on the lam.. ) it never ceases to amaze me to see first hand the Fandom of the Steelers. I've met WNYer's everywhere I've been and get our group together at Sports bars to cheer on the Bills. But everywhere, the roar and sheer numbers of Stiller Fans overwhelms the places. Must be those 5 Lombardi's.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted November 12, 2008 Author Share Posted November 12, 2008 Glad to hear this as well. Having lived in 9 different states now (I'm on the lam.. ) it never ceases to amaze me to see first hand the Fandom of the Steelers. I've met WNYer's everywhere I've been and get our group together at Sports bars to cheer on the Bills. But everywhere, the roar and sheer numbers of Stiller Fans overwhelms the places. There is no question that they have die-hard fans. It is impressive. Must be those 5 Lombardi's.. It couldn't hurt. I would settle for one at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eliteqb Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 Too bad for us though. I was hoping to bring the Steelers here and ship the buh buh buh Bealls to Toronto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 Good news for P-burgh and the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tcali Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 It looks like Dan Rooney will be getting the Steelers after all. There were reports earlier in the year that the team would be sold outside of the Rooney family, but it looks like Dan Rooney will still retain ownership of the team. IMO, this is good news. I like Dan. I spent 45 minutes talking to him in his office last year, and you couldn't meet a nicer person. (If you want to see an impressive building, just walk through the hallways at their administrative offices. The glass room with the Lombardi trophies was awe-inspiring.) Good for Dan!! Linky Thingy yeah and a small market team like the Ills...gives us hope Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 Exactly. This also addresses another point that keeps being brought up here and that is community ownership of the team. One of the two reasons that the NFL is forcing this sale is that no owner had 30 percent of the shares in the team. There is no way they will allow a team to not have a majority owner anymore. If all the NFL cared about was the gambling aspect with the Rooney brothers, then there would be no need for the sale, since the two brothers have already (or nearly) divested all of their gambling interests. This is about majority ownership of an NFL team. It is what I have been saying all along: The NFL will never change their Constitution to allow community ownership. The proof is in the forcing of the sale of the Steelers. Slightly different issue. Steelers would not have been sold to a public company, but to Druckenmiller. But with Dan Rooney's pull inside the NFL, it became apparent that the league was not going to approve a sale to anyone but him. For that, the 4 brothers had to accept a lower offer. And, in the careful what you wish for department, now the Steelers will take on a lot more debt to keep control with Rooney. That usually makes people do things they otherwise wouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted November 12, 2008 Author Share Posted November 12, 2008 Slightly different issue. Steelers would not have been sold to a public company, but to Druckenmiller. But with Dan Rooney's pull inside the NFL, it became apparent that the league was not going to approve a sale to anyone but him. For that, the 4 brothers had to accept a lower offer. And, in the careful what you wish for department, now the Steelers will take on a lot more debt to keep control with Rooney. That usually makes people do things they otherwise wouldn't. I understand that the original sale was to Druckenmiller and not to a public company. Regardless of whether they sold it to Druckenmiller or Rooney, the same issue stands: there needs to be one person with at least 30 percent ownership in the team. That is what the NFL is forcing and that eliminates any potential sale to a publicly owned company. I also agree with you that they wanted Rooney in charge because of the influence that he has around the league. While the Jerry Jones' of the league would have taken Druckenmiller if he showed he could bring in more $$ to the NFL, the rest of the owners and the commissioner would have supported Rooney. Another thing to keep in mind with the Jones' of the league is that the sale of the Steelers will help determine franchise values going forward. If the $$ comes in lower, then future sales (like the fish in Mijami, among others) would come in at a lower number. I'm rambling. I'll stop now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUFFALOTONE Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 I understand that the original sale was to Druckenmiller and not to a public company. Regardless of whether they sold it to Druckenmiller or Rooney, the same issue stands: there needs to be one person with at least 30 percent ownership in the team. That is what the NFL is forcing and that eliminates any potential sale to a publicly owned company. I also agree with you that they wanted Rooney in charge because of the influence that he has around the league. While the Jerry Jones' of the league would have taken Druckenmiller if he showed he could bring in more $$ to the NFL, the rest of the owners and the commissioner would have supported Rooney. Another thing to keep in mind with the Jones' of the league is that the sale of the Steelers will help determine franchise values going forward. If the $$ comes in lower, then future sales (like the fish in Mijami, among others) would come in at a lower number. I'm rambling. I'll stop now. I read a column in the Sun Sentinel here saying that Waynes sale is all but finished. That was confirmed this morning when Waynes son was on a morning talk show and was saying his Dad is selling everything and riding off into the sunset. My question is, as bad as the Fins attendance is year in and year out how are they able to show a profit to a buyer. I know they get Super Bowls and have "sell outs" but its a ghost town for every game. Granted its a bigger karket with no fan loyalty what so ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted November 12, 2008 Author Share Posted November 12, 2008 I read a column in the Sun Sentinel here saying that Waynes sale is all but finished. That was confirmed this morning when Waynes son was on a morning talk show and was saying his Dad is selling everything and riding off into the sunset. My question is, as bad as the Fins attendance is year in and year out how are they able to show a profit to a buyer. I know they get Super Bowls and have "sell outs" but its a ghost town for every game. Granted its a bigger karket with no fan loyalty what so ever. They are buying on the potential future of a Bill Parcells-run team. The fish have already shown improvement this year, so I am guessing it was not a difficult sell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 They are buying on the potential future of a Bill Parcells-run team. The fish have already shown improvement this year, so I am guessing it was not a difficult sell. There will never be a shortage of willing buyers for 1 of 32 ultimate trophy properties. Whether the buyer will make a return on the investment is the big question. Luxury boxes & PSL are a hard sell now, and if the economy continues to tank, it's hard to see the broadcasters offering the same TV deal next time around. The unthinkable - NFL revenues going down - may happen in the next couple of years. My guess is that possibility is the prime reason owners are taking a hard line against the union. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted November 12, 2008 Author Share Posted November 12, 2008 There will never be a shortage of willing buyers for 1 of 32 ultimate trophy properties. Whether the buyer will make a return on the investment is the big question. Luxury boxes & PSL are a hard sell now, and if the economy continues to tank, it's hard to see the broadcasters offering the same TV deal next time around. The unthinkable - NFL revenues going down - may happen in the next couple of years. My guess is that possibility is the prime reason owners are taking a hard line against the union. I agree completely. The owners pretty much f'ed themselves on the last deal and the economic downturn amplified the flaws in the last CBA (flaws, at least from the owner's perspective). The issue arises in how the owners and union will work out a new CBA. The major point of contention will hover around a rookie salary cap, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. Rich Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 The major point of contention will hover around a rookie salary cap, IMO. A badly needed rookie cap, in my estimation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 A badly needed rookie cap, in my estimation. The question is, what sort of rookie cap do you implement? One based on position and draft slot? I am all with you that a rookie cap is badly needed. 2nd - 7th rounders make squat, as they should. Its the first round, and really only the top 10 picks that are the problem. Personally, i would like to see this type of system for 1st round draft picks. 1. A hard rookie cap for all picks. None of this playing with numbers so Joe Schmoe gets $25 mil in guaranteed money while his rookie cap figure is "only" 1 mil. Set a hard cap where say top 10 picks gets $3 mil per season, 11-20 get 2 mil, and 21-32 get $1 mil, and all rookies sign 3 year deals. Perhaps you can have certain adjustments based on position where position X can get up to 50% more per year. Take Matt Ryan. Instead of 12 mil per year, he'd get 3 mil, plus a +50% bonus for being a QB, for a total of 4.5 mil per year. 2. Limit the signing bonuses for the higher picks. Signing bonuses should not be able to exceed a certain % of the contract value. 3. Since we are limiting rookie contracts to 3 years, to help teams out, install 2 years of RFA status, similar to other sports. Make the players actually earn their pay. This also gives the team flexibility with younger players, and drafting busts doesn't kill your salary cap (drafting busts hurts your team on the field enough, it shouldn't hurt your bottom line. So a player's status would look like this: After year 1 - under contract After year 2 - under contract After year 3 - player becomes a RFA, similar rules to current RFAs. Players can be tendered at varying levels (1st, 2nd, 2 1sts, etc) by the team that has their rights. Other teams can make offers to which the current team can match. After year 4 - same as after year 3, but players that are going to be tendered for a second year in a row receive an increase of 20 or 25%. After year 5 - player can become a UFA This gives the team plenty of time to judge their players and determine how much they should be paid. It also gives the rookies a chance to make some big money starting after their 3rd year. A team is not going to risk losing a very good player as an RFA, so they'd look to re-sign them before they hit RFA status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted November 12, 2008 Author Share Posted November 12, 2008 A badly needed rookie cap, in my estimation. There is no question they need a rookie cap. Getting the unions/player agents to buy into it is another story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 There is no question they need a rookie cap. Getting the unions/player agents to buy into it is another story. Honestly, I don't believe a rookie cap will be a big issue in the negotiations, as it will lead to veterans getting higher pay. The biggest issue will be the Defined Revenue Percentage that NFLPA will get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 The question is, what sort of rookie cap do you implement? One based on position and draft slot? I am all with you that a rookie cap is badly needed. 2nd - 7th rounders make squat, as they should. Its the first round, and really only the top 10 picks that are the problem. Personally, i would like to see this type of system for 1st round draft picks. 1. A hard rookie cap for all picks. None of this playing with numbers so Joe Schmoe gets $25 mil in guaranteed money while his rookie cap figure is "only" 1 mil. Set a hard cap where say top 10 picks gets $3 mil per season, 11-20 get 2 mil, and 21-32 get $1 mil, and all rookies sign 3 year deals. Perhaps you can have certain adjustments based on position where position X can get up to 50% more per year. Take Matt Ryan. Instead of 12 mil per year, he'd get 3 mil, plus a +50% bonus for being a QB, for a total of 4.5 mil per year. 2. Limit the signing bonuses for the higher picks. Signing bonuses should not be able to exceed a certain % of the contract value. 3. Since we are limiting rookie contracts to 3 years, to help teams out, install 2 years of RFA status, similar to other sports. Make the players actually earn their pay. This also gives the team flexibility with younger players, and drafting busts doesn't kill your salary cap (drafting busts hurts your team on the field enough, it shouldn't hurt your bottom line. So a player's status would look like this: After year 1 - under contract After year 2 - under contract After year 3 - player becomes a RFA, similar rules to current RFAs. Players can be tendered at varying levels (1st, 2nd, 2 1sts, etc) by the team that has their rights. Other teams can make offers to which the current team can match. After year 4 - same as after year 3, but players that are going to be tendered for a second year in a row receive an increase of 20 or 25%. After year 5 - player can become a UFA This gives the team plenty of time to judge their players and determine how much they should be paid. It also gives the rookies a chance to make some big money starting after their 3rd year. A team is not going to risk losing a very good player as an RFA, so they'd look to re-sign them before they hit RFA status. Not bad. Not bad at all. I like it. Good work on this, Ramius!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted December 4, 2008 Author Share Posted December 4, 2008 Update Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts