RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted September 5, 2009 Posted September 5, 2009 I am sorry, jimmy, but this Ayn Rand vision of sports misses a very significant point. All leagues are and have to be cartels of some kind, otherwise we are just talking about individual teams barnstorming the country playing pickup games. That being the case, it should be in the interest of all members to keep the league as a whole healthy as well as their individual teams. That is more than possible, and indeed the NFL has been a model of such success since 1970. For these newer owners to come in and assume they can keep making all this money without a healthy league is short-sighted and idiotic, betraying an utter lack of historical understanding. This has nothing to do with dreams of milk and honey, it is about survival of the sport. In a way, you cant blame owners like Jerry Jones and Danny Schneider for not wanting to share the money they make. In Wash, DC, Danny sells merchandise at a higher cost to WAY more people than Ralph Wilson can. They make more money off their club and their TV markets are much larger. Of course these owners have no respect for the old guard (Wilson, Mara, Paul Brown, KC guy, et al). The old owners want to share, like it was back in the Depression, when everyone was nice to one another and it was a land of milk and honey. Times have changed. There is no respect in business anymore. And the NFL is a business. Old deals and winks and nods are over. New fast-cat lawyers and businessmen owners will run this league into the ground. The anti-trust agreement is germane. As on poster stated, COngress could get involved. Charles Shumer, Sen from NY is Ralph Wilson's buddy. He sits on the Sen. Judicial Committee -- where this exemption would be hashed out, if it came to that. Ralph stuck his neck out a couple years back to push back Schneider and Jones on sharing. The owners all agreed to let Ralph has his way -- UNTIL THE NEW CBA which is coming up. THis is going to be a WAR ...
ThereIsNoDog Posted September 5, 2009 Posted September 5, 2009 Jerry needs 21 other owners to vote with him and get rid of revenue sharing. Good luck with that one!
Bad Lieutenant Posted September 5, 2009 Posted September 5, 2009 If JJ has his way the NFL will have 4 teams in NYC, 4 teams in Washington, 4 teams in L.A., 4 teams in Chicago, 4 teams in Boston, 4 teams in London, 4 teams in Beijing, and only 1 team in Dallas.
MikeSpeed Posted September 5, 2009 Posted September 5, 2009 If JJ has his way the NFL will have 4 teams in NYC, 4 teams in Washington, 4 teams in L.A., 4 teams in Chicago, 4 teams in Boston, 4 teams in London, 4 teams in Beijing, and only 1 team in Dallas. Wouldn't it be cool if someone put an expansion team in Dallas or Washington? Where there ticket prices were low and pizza was only $20. They would probably fail, but for a while the JJ and DS might lose some cash flow.
Bad Lieutenant Posted September 5, 2009 Posted September 5, 2009 Wouldn't it be cool if someone put an expansion team in Dallas or Washington? Where there ticket prices were low and pizza was only $20. They would probably fail, but for a while the JJ and DS might lose some cash flow. Jerry Jones is looking at the rest of the NFL the same way Vince McMahon looked at the old wrestling territory system. He doesn't realize that he can't just poach all the best players from the small market teams and then independently tour the Dallas Cowboys 300 days a year.
jimmy griffin Posted September 5, 2009 Posted September 5, 2009 Jerry Jones could care less about the structured league you talk about, where owners read history books on how great it used to be in the 1960s - all in an effort to keep the structure entact for future profits. This is evident by the fact that Jerry Jones actually SUED THE NFL (a few times) alleging the NFL was a monopoly and that revenue sharing was antitrust and restricted competition. Jones wanted to break the cartel up --- he could care less about the history and how the cartel ultimately protects the league or the other stuff you wrote. Why? Because the league is a mature entity now. It can stand on its own. You are drinking Ralph Wilson's punch that the "owners need to be govenors and stick together and keep the league solvent by being bound together as one cartel." That is Wilsons only way of making money -- is that scare tactic. Nonsense, the league has its concrete underpinnings, it will not fail. The tower is built strong, they are into Canada and will be into Mexico soon. Fans are hooked, merchanidise sales is hooked. The electronic media, TV, the sport itself is ingrained, stamped and forever part of the american fabric -- as a cant live without necessity. Local, state, federal entites are all co-mingleded in the NFL. The league is overly solvent/intact -- and it is the little teams and cities that need to get out of the way of the big cities (in the eyes of Jones, Schneider, etc). Right now, Buffalo uses about 70 % of its revenue to operate the club. The cowboys use about 30% of their revenues. The rest of the cowboys profits go to profit sharing (so 70% of jerry jones hard earned money goes to the league). 30% of Wilson's money goes to the league sharing. DOes that seem fair? And as time goes on, these numbers are getting larger. The NFL made like $8-10 BILLION last season. Ultimately, Ralph Wilson makes a HUGE profit by having a lossing team and doing nothing. I am sorry, jimmy, but this Ayn Rand vision of sports misses a very significant point. All leagues are and have to be cartels of some kind, otherwise we are just talking about individual teams barnstorming the country playing pickup games. That being the case, it should be in the interest of all members to keep the league as a whole healthy as well as their individual teams. That is more than possible, and indeed the NFL has been a model of such success since 1970. For these newer owners to come in and assume they can keep making all this money without a healthy league is short-sighted and idiotic, betraying an utter lack of historical understanding. This has nothing to do with dreams of milk and honey, it is about survival of the sport.
RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted September 5, 2009 Posted September 5, 2009 You are entitled to your opinion, but your numbers are absurd... I would think that Jerry J gets to keep a good bit of those profits, wouldn't you? Sure he wants to make more money, but if he wanted to maximize profits as a sole mission, he should have gone into a business where it actually makes sense to drive your competitors into bankruptcy, not a cartel of organizations built around a common goal in which competition within agreed upon rules (both on the field and off) are the basis of its success. To make the point, let me use an admittedly extreme example: If you become the only supplier of propane and propane accessories in the country, you are a success. If you become the owner of the only professional football team in the country, you have an expensive, worthless toy. You need other teams to play against to demonstrate your value, and you need a competitive league to maintain the level of interest that guarantees any profits at all. The rest of your arrogant dismissal of the need to understand how things have operate (what you insist on calling "reading history books," as if reading and/or history are worthless...) could be taken from the latest transcript of the "Golden Goose Killing Society." I know that Jerry Jones is a member, he has been trying to pry the Cowboys out of the NFL's various structures for years, I know. He believes that he can tear down enough of the league in order to get all the positives with no long-term danger, and is playing chicken. If he thinks that the Cowboys have some independent value outside of the value of the league, he is delusional. People who feel they need to defend him in the name of capitalism or "how things are today" are, to my mind, misguided. Jerry Jones could care less about the structured league you talk about, where owners read history books on how great it used to be in the 1960s - all in an effort to keep the structure entact for future profits. This is evident by the fact that Jerry Jones actually SUED THE NFL (a few times) alleging the NFL was a monopoly and that revenue sharing was antitrust and restricted competition. Jones wanted to break the cartel up --- he could care less about the history and how the cartel ultimately protects the league or the other stuff you wrote. Why? Because the league is a mature entity now. It can stand on its own. You are drinking Ralph Wilson's punch that the "owners need to be govenors and stick together and keep the league solvent by being bound together as one cartel." That is Wilsons only way of making money -- is that scare tactic. Nonsense, the league has its concrete underpinnings, it will not fail. The tower is built strong, they are into Canada and will be into Mexico soon. Fans are hooked, merchanidise sales is hooked. The electronic media, TV, the sport itself is ingrained, stamped and forever part of the american fabric -- as a cant live without necessity. Local, state, federal entites are all co-mingleded in the NFL. The league is overly solvent/intact -- and it is the little teams and cities that need to get out of the way of the big cities (in the eyes of Jones, Schneider, etc). Right now, Buffalo uses about 70 % of its revenue to operate the club. The cowboys use about 30% of their revenues. The rest of the cowboys profits go to profit sharing (so 70% of jerry jones hard earned money goes to the league). 30% of Wilson's money goes to the league sharing. DOes that seem fair? And as time goes on, these numbers are getting larger. The NFL made like $8-10 BILLION last season. Ultimately, Ralph Wilson makes a HUGE profit by having a lossing team and doing nothing.
RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted September 5, 2009 Posted September 5, 2009 Jerry Jones is looking at the rest of the NFL the same way Vince McMahon looked at the old wrestling territory system. He doesn't realize that he can't just poach all the best players from the small market teams and then independently tour the Dallas Cowboys 300 days a year. Exactly! Think of this difference: Ralph Wilson sees the Raiders and the Pats floundering in the 1960s, and arranges cash infusions to save the AFL so that everyone benefits, while Jerry Jones is looking for any way he can to crush smaller franchises. Which one contributes more to the future of the NFL?
BillsFan74 Posted September 5, 2009 Posted September 5, 2009 Jerry Jones is a idiot, the league cannot survive without reveune sharing. New York, Dallas, Washington, Philadelphia, New England, and Chicago can charge almost whatever they want but what about the rest of the league? None of the California teams can get any public financing for a new stadium does that mean those teams are out of Jerry's league? We know Buffalo, KC, Jax, GB, Det, Stl, Oak, Cle, Cin, Minn would all be at a significant disadvantage. I guess Jerry wants a 12 team league after the current cba expires.
jimmy griffin Posted September 5, 2009 Posted September 5, 2009 The WWE (formerly the WWF) -- is one the most profitable entertainment entities ever. they make about $600 mil (revenues) year. Thus, Jerry JOnes trying to mimic it, is brilliant. Im not taking JOnes side -- just playing devil's advocate. Crushing the little guy is how big business works. Business has no morals or social awareness. Ever hear of Enron? With the big business aside, and my opinion of what jones has in mind aside (his motivations) -- i agree with you RJ that you would think owners would want to preserve the product. And again, that is wilson's only position. WIlson also says that he deserves this sharing model b/k he was a poineer of the product. THis arguement (the Don Corleone trick) is almost done -- as his co-horts Mara, KC guys, Bidwell, etc are almost all gone and passed away. Wilson does deserve credit -- but after 40 years, no one cares. People are starting not to care about anything. The argument that the cartel must stay whole and that there money in the structure and conformity and unity of a well run league, on balance, can not compete or out rationalize the big business model seen in Major league baseball and wanted by NFL greedy owners. THey see profits being shared. They see a monopoly of teams - -that protect the little teams who HARDLY have any comapred to them. They see 5 or 6 teams that are in the way. The other cities are solvient and can make huge cash without sharing. Cincy, Buff, Jax, et al are the trouble makers. the little cities and teams have to beg for new stadiums to look like they are helping and participating in the sharing (here, if you get a new stadium - you make 20-30% more profit to bring to the profit sharing table). With Wilson, he has a crap stadium with NO luxury box licenses to big donors. He is NOT BRINING anything to the table or helping the sharing of money. His product is actually taking money as is Mike Brown's. And Jerry JOnes is pissed about that. ultimatly, the bills and fans get an inferior product and stadium with sharing. owners have no motivation to build or make profits. they simply live off scraps of the kills of the stronger lions. and with the new luxury box licnese fees and stadium fees, etc -- this sharing model is dumb for the big owners to keep up. Exactly! Think of this difference: Ralph Wilson sees the Raiders and the Pats floundering in the 1960s, and arranges cash infusions to save the AFL so that everyone benefits, while Jerry Jones is looking for any way he can to crush smaller franchises. Which one contributes more to the future of the NFL?
RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted September 5, 2009 Posted September 5, 2009 Yes I do remember Enron---a Texas-based corporation that argued that "the new rules" entitled them to do whatever they wanted and made them so super smart until reality crashed in. I wonder if Jerry Jones remembers them? You describe the mind-set very accurately. I have no problem recognizing Jones' motives. I do think that his motives are based on exactly the kind of dangerously short-sighted thinking that produces real estate bubbles and Enrons. That is why they are bad for the NFL. Speaking of cutting through everything to get what you want, let me finish with a quote, from "A Man for All Seasons," by Robert Bolt: More: What would you do? Cut a road through the law to get to the Devil? Roper: I would cut down every law in England to do that!” More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil himself turned on you—where would you hide…the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws…and if you cut them down… do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? The WWE (formerly the WWF) -- is one the most profitable entertainment entities every. Thus, Jerry JOnes trying to mimic it, is brilliant. Im not taking JOnes side -- just playing devil's advocate. Crushing the little guy is how big business works. Business has no morals or social awareness. Ever hear of Enron? With the big business aside, and my opinion of what jones has in mind aside (his motivations) -- i agree with you RJ that you would think owners would want to preserve the product. And again, that is wilson's only position. WIlson also says that he deserves this sharing model b/k he was a poineer of the product. THis arguement (the Don Corleone trick) is almost done -- as his co-horts Mara, KC guys, Bidwell, etc are almost all gone and passed away. Wilson does deserve credit -- but after 40 years, no one cares. People are starting not to care about anything. The argument that the cartel must stay whole and that there money in the structure and conformity and unity of a well run league, on balance, can not compete or out rationalize the big business model seen in Major league baseball and wanted by NFL greedy owners. THey see profits being shared. They see a monopoly of teams - -that protect the little teams who HARDLY have any comapred to them. They see 5 or 6 teams that are in the way. The other cities are solvient and can make huge cash without sharing. Cincy, Buff, Jax, et al are the trouble makers. the little cities and teams have to beg for new stadiums to look like they are helping and participating in the sharing (here, if you get a new stadium - you make 20-30% more profit to bring to the profit sharing table). With Wilson, he has a crap stadium with NO luxury box licenses to big donors. He is NOT BRINING anything to the table or helping the sharing of money. His product is actually taking money as is Mike Brown's. And Jerry JOnes is pissed about that.
Sisyphean Bills Posted September 5, 2009 Posted September 5, 2009 Maybe the Cowboys should just split off and form their own "league" like the Harlem Globetrotters. Then, they don't have to share their revenue. Nor is their popularity in any way inflated by their association with the rest of the NFL and a league that strives for competitive balance.
KD in CA Posted September 5, 2009 Posted September 5, 2009 The league as a whole is more powerful than a single owner or even a few owners. This has been tried before and failed. Revenue sharing may shift a little but it won't go away. That's one of the things that make the NFL the great league that it is. It's also been tried and been successful. See Major League Baseball. Jones, Kraft, Snyder, etc. want to be the Steinbrenners of the NFL. Keep all the money, have their own TV contracts, etc. They aren't interested in whether or not Buffalo and Minnesota can complete.
Sisyphean Bills Posted September 5, 2009 Posted September 5, 2009 It's also been tried and been successful. See Major League Baseball. Jones, Kraft, Snyder, etc. want to be the Steinbrenners of the NFL. Keep all the money, have their own TV contracts, etc. They aren't interested in whether or not Buffalo and Minnesota can complete. http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNew...E53M3KD20090423
BuffaloBill Posted September 5, 2009 Posted September 5, 2009 Revenue sharing may shift a little but it won't go away. I would like to believe this is true but I do not. If 4 or 6 weaker teams are dropped or left to atrophy (Buffalo could easily be one of them) then that is more TV money to split up between the remaining owners. Jerry Jones is an ego-maniac and he does not care for the "good of the league." He cares about his own ego and fame. At the same time he is pushing the other owners to get smart about marketing their teams.
irishman Posted September 5, 2009 Posted September 5, 2009 Revenue sharing has been there since the NFL was adopted. I don't care what anyone says people like Jones and Kraft are just greedy. When they purchased their teams they new the rules and what they were getting themselfs into. I could possibly see their point if they were original owners and build their respective teams from the ground up but all they did was purchase an already profitable team. If they don't like it I guantee you that JJ will have no problems selling the Cowboys especially since they've been rated the most valuable franchise. God, I really hate Jones......
Arkady Renko Posted September 5, 2009 Posted September 5, 2009 The cartel also keeps competitors out of Dallas, so JJ should STFU.
timstep Posted September 5, 2009 Posted September 5, 2009 Like it or not, the NFL teams are franchises controlled by the league. Jerry wants his own set of rules because he's an egomaniac. It would be like a guy who buys a Subway franchise, and then argues that he wants to sell hamburgers instead of subs because the profit margin is higher. Um, if you didn't like the setup in the first place, you shouldn't have bought the franchise. Jerry is more than entitled to become an owner of team in a non-revenue sharing league. He can sell the Cowboys and buy the Texas Rangers.
FloridaSnow Posted September 5, 2009 Posted September 5, 2009 It's also been tried and been successful. See Major League Baseball. Jones, Kraft, Snyder, etc. want to be the Steinbrenners of the NFL. Keep all the money, have their own TV contracts, etc. They aren't interested in whether or not Buffalo and Minnesota can complete. Baseball also has their market cornered. The NFL faces competition from college football and a host of start-up leagues that frequently try to grab some of the market share. Even without these alternate "pro" leagues, I would have no problem simply fully switching to college football if the NFL pushes teams like the Bills out.
Red Squirrel Posted September 5, 2009 Posted September 5, 2009 I went through about ten posts on this thread and found myself agreeing. It is easy to get your blood boiling over anything involving Jerry Jones. Then, I did a dangerous thing. I clicked on the link to the article, and READ it. Jerry plainly and clearly said he thought it was wrong that SMALLER markets, like KC and Green Bay, were subsidizing a larger market in Minneapolis. The part about, "That's called revenue sharing. That's on its way out" seems to be pointed at one (not so small) market which he feels should be able to take care of it's own stadium issues. This is a long way away from localizing TV contracts, ending the salary cap permanently, ending the draft, etc. What this really sounds like to me (and clearly ESPN.com, since it's the way they headlined their version of this article) is Jerry is helping Ziggy in an attempt to extort a new stadium from Minnesota taxpayers.
Recommended Posts