Revenue Sharing
 

Ok if the owners agree to full revenue sharring that would mean the higher revenue teams would have to add all of there monies(luxury, club, local ads and so on) into a pool with team like the Bengals (Paul Brown Stadium) therefore making it a complete even playing field.

So my question would be if the arguement for complete revenue sharring is accepted shouldn't all ticket prices be even accross the board. I suspect you would see a lawsuit by a fan or 2 as to the fairness of this agreement. If the owners and players want it to be equal (sharring all of the money) then the fans, who supply all of this money should have fair based pricing system.

2 club seats with parking at FEDEX $6,500.
2 Club Seats with parking at Paul Brown Stadium $4,100

Any Thoughts?

Re: Revenue Sharring
 

i always thought there would be no reason for individual owners to push to interact with fans. They would not need to put money into things like Redskins.com tv or extremeskins. They wouldnt' need to have training camp or the offseason beach blitz. If all money is shared why would one franchise work harder than the others. There would be no reason for upgrades to stadiums because the profits would be split 32 ways. It seems stupid to me. I think that they are sharing percentages though because without sharing %s there would be no reason to try as an owner. Even trying to win...

Re: Revenue Sharring
 

I totally agree.

To the stubborn smaller market owners: Hi, this is America. Maybe you've forgotten something that makes our country great, called capitalism!

I recognize that the smaller market owners could work just as hard as Dan Snyder or Jerry Jones and not make as much money, due to factors outside of their control. Life's not always fair, suck it up. All these owners are rolling in it anyway, and if a small market owner REALLY wanted to they could definitely match the richest teams, in terms of contracts, signing bonuses, etc. All teams make more than what the salary cap is set at, it's just a matter of if a owner wants to cut into their own profits a little bit, to keep up with Danny boy.

In the future, people who are thinking about buying a small market team should recognize this, and adjust their bids accordingly. For those who already overpaid for a small market team, sore out of luck (can't please everybody.) And for those who inherited a small market team, I have no sympathy for them either.

Re: Revenue Sharring
 

And I want to add that I don't even care if the players force 60% out of the owners (I would rather they don't.) I just really really don't want the large market owners to cave on the revenue sharing, because of principle.

Re: Revenue Sharring
 

It can't be denied that teams in bigger market have an clear and present advantage. I mean, can the Packers or Bengals ever generate as much money as the Redskins with their tri-fecta market of DC, Maryland, and Virginia?

In terms of a club generated revenue sharing I personally think it is necessary to share that revenue but only to the extent that every club shares a percentage of it not the entirety of it. That way teams that generate more revenue have an incentive to generate more money and keep more of it.

Bengals , you generate $150 million? Well, 50% of that goes into the pot. Redskins, you generate $300 million, we'll take $150 million of that. The Bengals will be left with $75 million and the Redskins $150 million. There should also be remedies to make sure teams are maximizing how much they earn (ala annual analysis of what teams are/aren't doing to make more money and penalize those teams that aren't doing enough).

Remember folks, the league is only as strong as it's weakest link.

Re: Revenue Sharring
 

I don't think that clubs who refuse on principle to engage in a marketing or business strategies should benefit from those things. If you want to share in stadium naming money you have to name your stadium.

Another question I have relates to the mechanics of RS. Is Snyder going to cut a check to the league at the end of the fiscal year? Will the NFL collect all revenue and then pay the Redskins their share? Will Bill Bidwell get an office at the Park?

Re: Revenue Sharring
 

Fair enough, Saden. I can see that working, but I would like to see less extreme sharing than those numbers you used in your example. (even though we still had twice as much as the Bengals :) )

And Saden, if you want a strong league, which we all do, my theory is that saying flat out NO to revenue sharing would force the issue on the smaller market team owners. The issue being that they either try and maximize their potential market, like Danny boy, or suffer the financial consequences (which might make them want to sell the team to an owner who might actually give a damn.)

Re: Revenue Sharring
 

[QUOTE=CRT3]
So my question would be if the arguement for complete revenue sharring is accepted shouldn't all ticket prices be even accross the board. [/QUOTE]

Absolutely not! You want to charge poor people in Cincinnati the same amount you would people in Norther Virginia and Maryland who happen to have 5 of the top 15 highest-income counties by per capita income in the United States? You'll be breaking all the rules of economics and not only that but you won't have people going to games in Cincy and you won't be making as much money as you could in Virgina.

Re: Revenue Sharring
 

It is messed. We make 205 million over 27 years-7.2 a year- to name Fex Ex Field. Some others are not making anything due to having tradition i.e. Soldier Field, Lambeau Feild. Then you have Jacksonville making 620,000 for their naming rights. And we have to split our money we make. Below is what the other teams make or not for their naming rights.

[url]http://www.leagueoffans.org/nflnamingrights.html[/url]

Re: Revenue Sharring
 

I still think that revenew sharing is un-American.
As a small business man I would not work as hard as I do and then share my money with companies around the Country that don't make as much.

That's.........STUPID.

Failing as a business[team]? Get better, Move, do something other than suck the blood out of me and my hard working company.

peace

Re: Revenue Sharring
 

Well said Sammy!

Re: Revenue Sharring
 

[QUOTE=dan_snyder69]Well said Sammy![/QUOTE]

Thanks!
Can I count on yer vote?
I'm running for President of the The Warpath Member's Association.
:hitfan:

Re: Revenue Sharring
 

[QUOTE=Sammy Baugh Fan]I still think that revenew sharing is un-American.
As a small business man I would not work as hard as I do and then share my money with companies around the Country that don't make as much.

That's.........STUPID.

Failing as a business[team]? Get better, Move, do something other than suck the blood out of me and my hard working company.

peace[/QUOTE]

The NFL is big business. Big monopolistic business. The sort of business where people have already carved out the best part of the turkey for themselves. The sort of business where you can't just move your team to better situate yourself to have more financial success. Think of the NFL as customer sharing business rather than money a sharing business.

Re: Revenue Sharring
 

[QUOTE=saden1]The NFL is big business. Big monopolistic business. The sort of business where people have already carved out the best part of the turkey for themselves. The sort of business where you can't just move your team to better situate yourself to have more financial success. Think of the NFL as customer sharing business rather than money a sharing business.[/QUOTE]


No, I won't think of it that way and I hope the group of 9 agrees.

So what if 4-5 teams had to move? They make players move for money.
Make them move their OWN money.

peace and respect

Re: Revenue Sharring
 

I understand what the NFL wants and what the Union wants and I understand why they want revenue sharing.

They want to create a level playing field that will make the league better as a whole, in turn making every team better in the end.

In America, we call this ...


[b]com·mu·nism[/b] [url="https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fsearch%3Fr%3D2%26q%3DCommunism"][img]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg[/img][/url] ([color=red][font=verdana,sans-serif] P [/font][/color]) [url="http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html"][b]Pronunciation Key[/b][/url] (k[img]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/obreve.gif[/img]m[img]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gif[/img]y[img]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif[/img]-n[img]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ibreve.gif[/img]z[img]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/lprime.gif[/img][img]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif[/img]m)
[i]n.[/i]
[list=1][*]A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.[/list]...From dictionary.com

Re: Revenue Sharring
 

[QUOTE=GoSkins!]In America, we call this ...


[b]com·mu·nism[/b] [url="https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fsearch%3Fr%3D2%26q%3DCommunism"][img]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg[/img][/url] ([color=red][font=verdana,sans-serif] P [/font][/color]) [url="http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html"][b]Pronunciation Key[/b][/url] (k[img]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/obreve.gif[/img]m[img]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gif[/img]y[img]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif[/img]-n[img]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ibreve.gif[/img]z[img]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/lprime.gif[/img][img]http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif[/img]m)
[i]n.[/i][list=1][*]A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.[/list]...From dictionary.com[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately for 100 million Earthlings unlucky enough to have been born in the last century in various parts of Asia or the European backwater called Russia, it was and is much more than "theoretical". But I digress... Back to football...

P.S. Maybe we should look up the definition of "sharring". I bet it has something to do with Shar Pourdanish.

Re: Revenue Sharring
 

[QUOTE=saden1]Absolutely not! You want to charge poor people in Cincinnati the same amount you would people in Norther Virginia and Maryland who happen to have 5 of the top 15 highest-income counties by per capita income in the United States? You'll be breaking all the rules of economics and not only that but you won't have people going to games in Cincy and you won't be making as much money as you could in Virgina.[/QUOTE]

Yo dude there are a higher amount of poor people in PG County and DC then in Cincinati. There are poor people everywhere. IF you want to have complete sharring and equal revenues for all then prices should be equal period.

If you go by your theory then the Redskins should be able to keep more money cause of there demographics. I don't think the owners will make their decesion based on demos.

Re: Revenue Sharring
 

[QUOTE=saden1]The sort of business where you can't just move your team to better situate yourself to have more financial success. Think of the NFL as customer sharing business rather than money a sharing business.[/QUOTE]

OK I'll go along with your argument after you explain a few things to me...

Baltimore Ravens ---> Originally the Cleveland Browns
Tennessee Titans ---> Originally the Houston Oilers
Arizona/Phoenix Cardinals ---> Originally the St. Louis Cardinals
St. Louis Rams ---> Originally the Los Angeles Rams
Oakland Raiders ---> previously L.A. Raiders ---> previously Oakland Raiders
Indianapolis Colts ---> Originally the Baltimore Colts

All these teams moved to improve their financial situation via, in many cases, a promised larger stadium, or a more exclusive market. I believe three (maybe four) of these teams went on to win SBs after their moves to new homes.

Re: Revenue Sharring
 

Burnnnnn!

Re: Revenue Sharring
 

In America, we call the NFL a monopoly. Actually even worse, it's a monopoly with its own subset of monopolies.

Re: Revenue Sharring
 

St. Louis Cardinals - - - - Chicago Cardinals

L.A. Rams - - - - - - - - - Cleveland Rams

Re: Revenue Sharring
 

[QUOTE=LongTimeSkinsFan]OK I'll go along with your argument after you explain a few things to me...

Baltimore Ravens ---> Originally the Cleveland Browns
Tennessee Titans ---> Originally the Houston Oilers
Arizona/Phoenix Cardinals ---> Originally the St. Louis Cardinals
St. Louis Rams ---> Originally the Los Angeles Rams
Oakland Raiders ---> previously L.A. Raiders ---> previously Oakland Raiders
Indianapolis Colts ---> Originally the Baltimore Colts

All these teams moved to improve their financial situation via, in many cases, a promised larger stadium, or a more exclusive market. I believe three (maybe four) of these teams went on to win SBs after their moves to new homes.[/QUOTE]

Only 2 of these with SB's. BAltimore and St. Louis.

Re: Revenue Sharring
 

[QUOTE=CRT3]Only 2 of these with SB's. BAltimore and St. Louis.[/QUOTE]

That's right. I had forgotten Tennessee lost to St. Louis in 1 super bowl. But as Houston, they made 0 appearances in the big game. Was Oakland the L.A. Raiders when they beat the 'Skins or were they still in Oakland at that time?

Re: Revenue Sharring
 

[QUOTE=CRT3]Yo dude there are a higher amount of poor people in PG County and DC then in Cincinati. There are poor people everywhere. IF you want to have complete sharring and equal revenues for all then prices should be equal period.

If you go by your theory then the Redskins should be able to keep more money cause of there demographics. I don't think the owners will make their decesion based on demos.[/QUOTE]
First of, in normal day to day business underpricing goods is illegal and over pricing goods is also illegal. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing]Price fixing[/url], which is what you are advocating, is also illigal. Since the NFL doesn't have any competition that will complain about [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_behavior]Anti-competitive practices[/url] teams can under price goods (tickets and etc). Teams cannot, however, over price goods to the extent MOST of the consumers can't afford it. Why? Cause that's called [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_gauging]price gauging[/url] which is a felony. If your really want to learn more about microeconomics have a look [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pricing]here.[/url]

Oh, but owners have already made their decision based on demographics. All the owners in favor of sharing have smaller demographics (smaller market teams) and all the owners with larger demographics are dead set against revenue sharing. Revenue sharing and demographics are not mutually exclusive.

Re: Revenue Sharring
 

[QUOTE=LongTimeSkinsFan]OK I'll go along with your argument after you explain a few things to me...

Baltimore Ravens ---> Originally the Cleveland Browns
Tennessee Titans ---> Originally the Houston Oilers
Arizona/Phoenix Cardinals ---> Originally the St. Louis Cardinals
St. Louis Rams ---> Originally the Los Angeles Rams
Oakland Raiders ---> previously L.A. Raiders ---> previously Oakland Raiders
Indianapolis Colts ---> Originally the Baltimore Colts

All these teams moved to improve their financial situation via, in many cases, a promised larger stadium, or a more exclusive market. I believe three (maybe four) of these teams went on to win SBs after their moves to new homes.[/QUOTE]

You are right teams can move. Perhaps I should have been more clear and said they can move, but they can never move to big markets. What is really interesting though is how well new teams have done (Browns, Ravens, Texans). They certainly seem to have better management in place but that in itself is not enough if you want to be in the same league as the Redskins. You need affluent customers too.

Re: Revenue Sharring
 

[QUOTE=saden1]Teams cannot, however, over price goods to the extent MOST of the consumers can't afford it. Why? Cause that's called [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_gauging"]price gauging[/url] which is a felony.[/QUOTE]

The term is price gouging and you are using it out of context. The source of your definition provides a more valid example of price gouging as follows:

[i]Price gouging may be charged when a supplier of essential goods or services sharply raises the prices asked in anticipation of or during a civil emergency, or when it cancels or dishonors contracts in order to take advantage of an increase in prices related to such an emergency. The model case is a retailer who increases the price of existing stocks of milk and bread when a hurricane is imminent. -Wikipedia[/i]

Price gouging could not be charged against the NFL teams because (1) the goods or services they provide would not be considered essential and (2) the price increase would not be initiated in anticipation of or during a civil emergency.

As far as the NFLs pricing strategy goes with their products like hats, shirts, etc., they can set price levels as high as they want. The demand on such goods is elastic to begin with since there are enough look-alikes to offer competition in the marketplace. As an example, my wife probably would have had to pay $125 or so for an official Clinton Portis jersey, but the one she picked up at Wal-Mart a couple of years ago for $20 suits me just fine. BTW, you wanna talk REAL anti-competitive practices, do a case study of Wal-Mart!

Re: Revenue Sharring
 

[QUOTE=saden1]First of, in normal day to day business underpricing goods is illegal and over pricing goods is also illegal. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing"]Price fixing[/url], which is what you are advocating, is also illigal. Since the NFL doesn't have any competition that will complain about [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_behavior"]Anti-competitive practices[/url] teams can under price goods (tickets and etc). Teams cannot, however, over price goods to the extent MOST of the consumers can't afford it. Why? Cause that's called [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_gauging"]price gauging[/url] which is a felony. If your really want to learn more about microeconomics have a look [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pricing"]here.[/url]

Oh, but owners have already made their decision based on demographics. All the owners in favor of sharing have smaller demographics (smaller market teams) and all the owners with larger demographics are dead set against revenue sharing. Revenue sharing and demographics are not mutually exclusive.[/QUOTE]

This is why I love this board. Great info and intelligent arguements. Excellent Saden, point taken, but we will see in the comming days.

Re: Revenue Sharring
 

[QUOTE=saden1]You are right teams can move. Perhaps I should have been more clear and said they can move, but they can never move to big markets. What is really interesting though is how well new teams have done (Browns, Ravens, Texans). They certainly seem to have better management in place but that in itself is not enough if you want to be in the same league as the Redskins. You need affluent customers too.[/QUOTE]

The Baltimore Ravens are drawing from the same SMSA as the Redskins. I would be inclined to think if their management was as agressive in marketing the Ravens, the Redskins would not be nearly as profitable as they have been over the past few years. The Tennessee Titans mismanaged themselves and had to release several high salaried veterans because of cap implications, but not because of financial insolvency. Who do the Titans compete with for a fan base in Tennessee other than college teams? No one. They are unique in their georgraphical area and I'm sure that was part of the incentive to move from Houston (with Dallas nearby). Indianapolis is much the same story. In Baltimore, they were competing against a Redskin team that was consistently a winning team if not a playoff team. Then owner Robert Irsay demanded a new, larger stadium to increase revenues. He didn't get it, and Indianapolis steps in- a new domed stadium and a market with no pro ball competition.

Re: Revenue Sharring
 

I'm not sure revenue sharing is communism. It's about the overall health of the league in the long term. I don't think leveling is the answer, but some kind of give-back where the rich teams help keep the league competitive isn't a bad idea. The question is how to best implement that idea without removing incentive to improve your team and so on.

Leagues with single team (or just a few team) dynasties don't make as much money overall, and are less fun to watch--so even the "rich" owners have an incentive to buy into the plan.

It's less like communism and more like a meeting of mafia dons deciding how to carve up their criminal empires. Don Snyder sends his repects to Don Jones. Perhaps Don Rooney will soon sleep with the fishes? Has Don Tagliabue made the owners an offer they can't refuse?

Re: Revenue Sharring
 

those according to their abilities to those according to their needs.

It is at its heart a socialist idea; saying that it's not would be incorrect. Whether it's in the better interest of the league (as a whole) is debateable.

And with all the talk of moving teams, I can't believe no one mentioned the Boston Braves. shame on you.

Re: Revenue Sharring
 

[QUOTE=LongTimeSkinsFan]The term is price gouging and you are using it out of context. The source of your definition provides a more valid example of price gouging as follows:

[i]Price gouging may be charged when a supplier of essential goods or services sharply raises the prices asked in anticipation of or during a civil emergency, or when it cancels or dishonors contracts in order to take advantage of an increase in prices related to such an emergency. The model case is a retailer who increases the price of existing stocks of milk and bread when a hurricane is imminent. -Wikipedia[/i]

Price gouging could not be charged against the NFL teams because (1) the goods or services they provide would not be considered essential and (2) the price increase would not be initiated in anticipation of or during a civil emergency.

As far as the NFLs pricing strategy goes with their products like hats, shirts, etc., they can set price levels as high as they want. The demand on such goods is elastic to begin with since there are enough look-alikes to offer competition in the marketplace. As an example, my wife probably would have had to pay $125 or so for an official Clinton Portis jersey, but the one she picked up at Wal-Mart a couple of years ago for $20 suits me just fine. BTW, you wanna talk REAL anti-competitive practices, do a case study of Wal-Mart![/QUOTE]

Excuse my misspelling of the word, thanks for pointing that out. I must also point out that you're are in correct in your assessment. If your read further down the article you'll notices that it states:
[QUOTE][I]The term is not in widespread use in economic theory but is sometimes used to refer to practices of a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercive_monopoly]coercive monopoly[/url] which raises prices above the market rate that would otherwise prevail in a competitive environment.[/I][/QUOTE]
Since the NFL is a monopoly it [can] indeed engaged in price gouging and a determined individual can successfully sue them.

edit: added [can]

Re: Revenue Sharring
 

good luck with that. price gouging is like the idiots who charged 20-50$ for a bag of ice after the hurricanes.

the nfl may be price fixing (illegal but very hard to prove, and the settlements bring peanuts), but its not price gouging in any sense. the NFL is not essential, its entertainment.

Re: Revenue Sharring
 

[QUOTE=That Guy]those according to their abilities to those according to their needs.

It is at its heart a socialist idea; saying that it's not would be incorrect. Whether it's in the better interest of the league (as a whole) is debateable.

And with all the talk of moving teams, I can't believe no one mentioned the Boston Braves. shame on you.[/QUOTE]

You are using the word socialism very literally. You are talking about billionaires in a capalistic society who formed a monopolistic entity argue amongst themselves about what their cut from revenue generate from society. If it were socialism, the money would end up back in the pockets of fans. Last time I checked, the NFL didn't send me a check.

Re: Revenue Sharring
 

[QUOTE=That Guy]good luck with that. price gouging is like the idiots who charged 20-50$ for a bag of ice after the hurricanes.

the nfl may be price fixing (illegal but very hard to prove, and the settlements bring peanuts), but its not price gouging in any sense. the NFL is not essential, its entertainment.[/QUOTE]

The penalties aren't peanuts, if the state attorney or the feds are suing you. You know NY attorney general Eliot Spitzer is not someone the NFL wants snooping in its business practice.

This brings up the question of what happens if the ticket prices are too high and people can't afford to go to the game? Is blacking out games legal?

It's 12:30 am in the left cost, I got to get some zzz's. Peace.

Re: Revenue Sharring
 

[QUOTE=saden1]This brings up the question of what happens if the ticket prices are too high and people can't afford to go to the game? Is blacking out games legal?[/QUOTE]

What you are proposing would be called in layman's terms 'cutting off one's nose to spite one's face'. Again, I would issue the point that for the most part, the demand for the NFLs products, be they entertainment, clothing, or novelties is an elastic model by economic definitions and while there may be a core of enthusiasts for any given team willing to pay almost any price for such goods, the volume of sales needed to generate profit levels consistent with numbers we're seeing today would require that prices be kept at affordable levels. This would include re-broadcast rights and licensing revenues as well.

For example, I have never been to a game at FedEx field and all the people that I know locally that are Redskin or pro football fans go to games there about once a year. The cost of a ticket for many of us in this area is disproportionate to the value of the experience, especially since we can listen to a game on radio or watch it on TV. In the case of a blackout, radio is not affected, but even if it were, there is the internet and the newspaper the next day. At least to me and many other people, NFL product, regardless of its nature, is paid with disposable income and not essential to daily living.

Re: Revenue Sharring
 

Before we get too enthralled with the cries of capitalism versus socialsim here, let me offer something to think about.

The NFL (just like MLB and the NBA) is slightly different from your ordinary business. Consider this:

If there is a market out there to sell 1000 widgets in a year and there are three companies making widgets, it behooves Company A to try to put either Company B or Company C out of business. If they do that then they only have one other competitor for those 1000 widgets that will be sold in a year. Assuming that Company C is out of the picture, Companies A and B are in a position to do better than they did before Company C had to fold.

That is NOT the case with the NFL. If the 8 or 9 "big market teams" actually put the 8 or 9 "small market teams" out of business, that would hurt the big market teams because they would not have a league with a national footprint and total league revenue would go down. With fewer teams, interest MIGHT not continue to increase and the league could be in trouble.

And more importantly to the 8 or 9 "big market teams" the values of their franchises would drop. After all, one lure of owning an NFL franchise is that none of them actually lose money; if some start to drop like flies, that makes owning one a dicier proposition and franchise values will go down.

Just imagine if the NFL actually had only 8-12 teams again. If 20 franchises had to fold, the league would have difficulty selling expansion ever again AND teams would be playing each other too many times to keep it interesting. Also, how would there be fantasy leagues with so few players.

Danny Boy has a huge cash-cow here with the Skins. But the fact is that he also has a franchise he paid over $800M for and the estimated value now is about $1.1 - 1.2B. He would be a fool - and in business matters he is anything but a fool - to do ANYTHING that would jeopardize the continued increase in value for his franchise. In fact, if the value ever dropped to sy $600M, his creditors would probably call his loan that he took to buy the team.

As Jim Rome might say, that would suck!

Re: Revenue Sharring
 

saden, the fans feed the system, they aren't part of it though ;)

SC, the teams still share tv revenue and all franchises are profitable. If they need to go clippers, the tv revenue could literally pay all stadium, staffing, coaching, and player salaries and leave the owners with over 40million a year in profit.

Re: Revenue Sharring
 

[QUOTE=saden1]The penalties aren't peanuts, if the state attorney or the feds are suing you. You know NY attorney general Eliot Spitzer is not someone the NFL wants snooping in its business practice.

This brings up the question of what happens if the ticket prices are too high and people can't afford to go to the game? Is blacking out games legal?

It's 12:30 am in the left cost, I got to get some zzz's. Peace.[/QUOTE]

the riaa just settled a massive price fixing lawsuit, and guess what the prosecution got? 2000 crappy CDs that didn't sell at retail donated to charity and $2 checks. Price fixing suits usually aren't big payouts.

blacking out games is legal if its in the terms of the contract, you're not forced or required to watch the games. If the ticket prices are too high, don't pay. its a perfectly viable option and it won't put your physical well being in jeopardy.

Re: Revenue Sharring
 

[QUOTE=That Guy]the riaa just settled a massive price fixing lawsuit, and guess what the prosecution got? 2000 crappy CDs that didn't sell at retail donated to charity and $2 checks. Price fixing suits usually aren't big payouts.

blacking out games is legal if its in the terms of the contract, you're not forced or required to watch the games. If the ticket prices are too high, don't pay. its a perfectly viable option and it won't put your physical well being in jeopardy.[/QUOTE]

I bet the plaintiff's lawyer's are shopping for new Gulfstreams though.

Re: Revenue Sharring
 

[QUOTE=That Guy]the riaa just settled a massive price fixing lawsuit, and guess what the prosecution got? 2000 crappy CDs that didn't sell at retail donated to charity and $2 checks. Price fixing suits usually aren't big payouts.

blacking out games is legal if its in the terms of the contract, you're not forced or required to watch the games. If the ticket prices are too high, don't pay. its a perfectly viable option and it won't put your physical well being in jeopardy.[/QUOTE]

The RIAA suite was made into a class action suit by the lawyers for the lawyers. This is the preferred type of suit you want to be involved in if you're money loving law firm. The way these suites gets started typically involves a law firm scrounging up a dozen or so people and then soliciting for more people to join the suit. A price fixing suite brought on by a government entity (state or federal) is damaging [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRAM_price_fixing]monetarily[/url] and could cost executives their [URL=http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6044843.html]freedom[/URL].