Will the next CBA make or break the Bills?

[dogbyte]

I think people miss the point of the old CBA, the owners voted to accept the CBA knowing it was not good because of the upcoming TV contract. They knew the had an opt out in 2 years. This let them get their finances and TV contracts renewed with the fact that they will get their TV money even if there is a lookout. They also built up a lockout fund which has 300 million for each team set aside to cover the owners cost during a lockout. As soon as this was accomplished they dumped the CBA. The upcoming no cap year has a lot of provisions in it to keep teams from going wild and spending crazy. Plus the 2006 Pats were under the cap and would not of had to cut players, the teams it helped the were the Redskins and Cowboys

many people here are always complaining how the Pats sign players for less than market value. Plus the Pats have let a lot of players leave when their contract demands became too high (ie Samuels, Law, Daniels, Gay and others) If they were as free spending as you say they would of signed all of them to big contracts like the Redskins.

Bob Kraft is an outstanding businessman and has been they driving force behind getting the NFL owners 3 tremendous TV contracts, that has generated millions for RW and the Buffalo Bills. The NFL owners even RW have thanked him for this on many occasions. All owners have different opinions on things. Kraft does not want the luxury box income to be counted until after the stadium is paid for, he also wants team to find ways to get more income like selling naming rights for stadiums. If he has to add the income from boxes to the shared pool then RW has to add the 5 million he gets from Erie county for the stadium. RW does not want to do these things but neither want the Jerry Jones or Snyder going crazy. You might also have to add the NY Jets into the picture when they get their new stadium. This will be a major stumbling block in the future on owners who pay for their stadiums verses owners who get free stadiums and all the concession and parking money. Also remeber that the teams get a split of the gate when the play each other. Where the home team gets 60% to 40% for the visting team. because of the lage difference in ticket prices RW gets nearly 50 % more than the Pats do when they play each other

[Mr. WEO]

I think people miss the point of the old CBA, the owners voted to accept the CBA knowing it was not good because of the upcoming TV contract. They knew the had an opt out in 2 years. This let them get their finances and TV contracts renewed with the fact that they will get their TV money even if there is a lookout. They also built up a lockout fund which has 300 million for each team set aside to cover the owners cost during a lockout. As soon as this was accomplished they dumped the CBA. The upcoming no cap year has a lot of provisions in it to keep teams from going wild and spending crazy. Plus the 2006 Pats were under the cap and would not of had to cut players, the teams it helped the were the Redskins and Cowboys

many people here are always complaining how the Pats sign players for less than market value. Plus the Pats have let a lot of players leave when their contract demands became too high (ie Samuels, Law, Daniels, Gay and others) If they were as free spending as you say they would of signed all of them to big contracts like the Redskins.

Bob Kraft is an outstanding businessman and has been they driving force behind getting the NFL owners 3 tremendous TV contracts, that has generated millions for RW and the Buffalo Bills. The NFL owners even RW have thanked him for this on many occasions. All owners have different opinions on things. Kraft does not want the luxury box income to be counted until after the stadium is paid for, he also wants team to find ways to get more income like selling naming rights for stadiums. If he has to add the income from boxes to the shared pool then RW has to add the 5 million he gets from Erie county for the stadium. RW does not want to do these things but neither want the Jerry Jones or Snyder going crazy. You might also have to add the NY Jets into the picture when they get their new stadium. This will be a major stumbling block in the future on owners who pay for their stadiums verses owners who get free stadiums and all the concession and parking money. Also remeber that the teams get a split of the gate when the play each other. Where the home team gets 60% to 40% for the visting team. because of the lage difference in ticket prices RW gets nearly 50 % more than the Pats do when they play each other

All good points. All wasted on these clowns.

 

Dogbyte must be a pats* fan.

[VOR]

Other than your fervent wish, there is no evidence that some of the owners won't blow out the top and bottom of the salary cap in short order. Teams like the Bills and Packers are just as likely to fall out of the bottom as the Redskins and Cowboys are to blast through the top.

It's far from me "fervent wish." I have no stake in the teams reigning-in Snyder and Jones. They OTOH have everything at stake. And it's these clowns, along with Kraft, who drew-up that last CBA.

 

The League pushed the deal hard for labor peace. Rather than a strike or a lockout, they were willing to push forward a deal based on poor economics. The NFLPA and the owners are going to be doing a lot of posturing. But, the NFL will struggle if the NFLPA thinks that the owners deserve no revenue and/or should even support the players with other independent revenue streams. When they say "global economy", they don't mean "everyone except NFL players" and they don't mean that television contracts can continue to rise while media companies hemorrhage money.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that you'll have "labor peace" if you give into the demands of your employees. The players wanted 60% of total revenue and ended-up getting 59.5%, while the owners went from 54.5% to 59.5%. That's just a 0.5% decrease in what they players wanted, and a 5% increase over what the owners had been paying. But a sh------- deal is still a sh------- deal and saying "hey, but it preserved labor peace" for a few years while having the potential to screw the league even more down the road, is not saying a whole lot.

[Mr. WEO]

It's far from me "fervent wish." I have no stake in the teams reigning-in Snyder and Jones. They OTOH have everything at stake. And it's these clowns, along with Kraft, who drew-up that last CBA.

 

 

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that you'll have "labor peace" if you give into the demands of your employees. The players wanted 60% of total revenue and ended-up getting 59.5%, while the owners went from 54.5% to 59.5%. That's just a 0.5% decrease in what they players wanted, and a 5% increase over what the owners had been paying. But a sh------- deal is still a sh------- deal and saying "hey, but it preserved labor peace" for a few years while having the potential to screw the league even more down the road, is not saying a whole lot.

I thought Dog did a nice job of explaining this, but apparently it's beyond comprehension for some.

 

Hence the persuasive response "a sh------- deal is still a sh------- deal". Wow.

 

Look, the owners got their war chest together and then opted out--leaving the players in a tenuous position. Sounds like a good plan to me. The players will never get a better deal down the road. In fact, in two years, their current deal no longer exists. Gene Upshaw is dead. Once they are locked out, they are at the owners' mercy. 1987.

[VOR]

I think people miss the point of the old CBA, the owners voted to accept the CBA knowing it was not good because of the upcoming TV contract. They knew the had an opt out in 2 years. This let them get their finances and TV contracts renewed with the fact that they will get their TV money even if there is a lookout. They also built up a lockout fund which has 300 million for each team set aside to cover the owners cost during a lockout. As soon as this was accomplished they dumped the CBA. The upcoming no cap year has a lot of provisions in it to keep teams from going wild and spending crazy. Plus the 2006 Pats were under the cap and would not of had to cut players, the teams it helped the were the Redskins and Cowboys

many people here are always complaining how the Pats sign players for less than market value. Plus the Pats have let a lot of players leave when their contract demands became too high (ie Samuels, Law, Daniels, Gay and others) If they were as free spending as you say they would of signed all of them to big contracts like the Redskins.

Bob Kraft is an outstanding businessman and has been they driving force behind getting the NFL owners 3 tremendous TV contracts, that has generated millions for RW and the Buffalo Bills. The NFL owners even RW have thanked him for this on many occasions. All owners have different opinions on things. Kraft does not want the luxury box income to be counted until after the stadium is paid for, he also wants team to find ways to get more income like selling naming rights for stadiums. If he has to add the income from boxes to the shared pool then RW has to add the 5 million he gets from Erie county for the stadium. RW does not want to do these things but neither want the Jerry Jones or Snyder going crazy. You might also have to add the NY Jets into the picture when they get their new stadium. This will be a major stumbling block in the future on owners who pay for their stadiums verses owners who get free stadiums and all the concession and parking money. Also remeber that the teams get a split of the gate when the play each other. Where the home team gets 60% to 40% for the visting team. because of the lage difference in ticket prices RW gets nearly 50 % more than the Pats do when they play each other

The Patriots had $91.5M towards an adjusted (old CBA) cap of $92.5M in 2006, prior to the start of FA and before the draft. They ended-up 76 cents UNDER the new-CBA 2006 cap ($100M adjusted) when all was said and done. To think they had loads of room is wrong.

 

And why did the owners self-impose a deadline of the start of FA that year? Why not have FA start under the old cap and then work on the CBA? That's because teams wanted to work with the increased cap number, rather than facing cuts. And again, why total revenue needed to be used, when shared revenue had been used for the previous 13 years without any problems (and this, actually, is the crux of Ralph's problem), is also a question one needs to ask, but obvious to most.

 

The TV contracts had nothing to do with anything. They were going to get done whether there was a new CBA or not. And their value didn't even enter into the calculation for the 2006 salary cap. And the NFL product has sold itself for years. Fox's incursion into the football realm created a 4 major network demand for 3 packages.

 

Ralph isn't the only owner to get money from his county to pay for upkeep of the county's stadium. Most owners would factor-in what they're getting, especially since most got $150M from the NFL's G-3 pool.

 

As for ticket prices, again, the Buffalo market cannot support much more than what Ralph is charging. A new stadium will only take needed dollars for a luxury item, while creating higher prices and straining an already strained fanbase and economy.

 

As I said, the time to take a stand was 3 years ago, before the owners foolishly gave up 5% of total revenue.

[VOR]

I thought...

That was your first mistake.