Commanders Post at The Warpath

Commanders Post at The Warpath (http://www.thewarpath.net/forum.php)
-   Locker Room Main Forum (http://www.thewarpath.net/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Revenue Sharing. (http://www.thewarpath.net/showthread.php?t=6373)

Daseal 05-28-2005 06:26 PM

Revenue Sharing.
 
Could someone explain this to me a bit? From what I understand the teams that make more money (Redskins, Cowboys, Raiders, etc.) have to share money with teams that don't? To me this doesn't make sense at all. Owners like Snyder get crucified for being a money hungry wolf, then is forced to share his money? He spends a lot of money marketing and making the skins have mass appeal -- yet for some reason has to share his income with a team that doesn't work so hard.

Is it simply to make it so poor teams fill the salary cap and keep the league competitive? I just don't understand why successfull owners, at least in the income department, are forced to help owners who aren't nearly as good.

wolfeskins 05-28-2005 06:37 PM

Re: Revenue Sharing.
 
i think most owners try to market thier teams well but some teams just don't have the fan base that other do. some teams don't get the same support from thier fans etc...
thats not the owners fault.
and yes , the league does this to keep every team competitive, which is a good thing. at least i think it is.

mooby 05-28-2005 07:00 PM

Re: Revenue Sharing.
 
some teams aren't in a bigger market like dallas, or philadelphia, or washington. this is just an idea that they are thinking of, it hasn't actually been approved yet. it's so teams like the browns get a little money to get off the ground, because they don't make as much because cleveland doesn't have a large market, plus the team isn't that good. teams that make the playoffs more often make more money. i know washington doesn't support that statement, but that's because we are in a larger market.

CRT3 05-28-2005 08:44 PM

Re: Revenue Sharing.
 
Washington maximizes revenue streams. They are the most active in creating revenue thru marketting and merchandise sales. While teams like Buffalo refuse to go after the market that is there. So the CBA is being held up till the can come to a conclusion of how to share the other revenues that are being generated such as luxury boxes, club seats, merchandise and marketting $. This is why I think you will see no cap in the 2007 season as this will be a bone of contention with many and it will be a serious fight for the $

Sheriff Gonna Getcha 05-28-2005 08:54 PM

Re: Revenue Sharing.
 
Good post CRT3, you took the words right out of my mouth. Unfortunately, the revenue sharing screws over the 'Skins.

skin4Life28 05-28-2005 10:27 PM

Re: Revenue Sharing.
 
Its basically the same thing as the luxury tax in baseball. Except the Yankees can sign who ever they want. Oh wait, we do that to.

FRPLG 05-28-2005 11:07 PM

Re: Revenue Sharing.
 
[QUOTE=mooby]some teams aren't in a bigger market like dallas, or philadelphia, or washington. this is just an idea that they are thinking of, it hasn't actually been approved yet. it's so teams like the browns get a little money to get off the ground, because they don't make as much because cleveland doesn't have a large market, plus the team isn't that good. teams that make the playoffs more often make more money. i know washington doesn't support that statement, but that's because we are in a larger market.[/QUOTE]
Yes and no. The league has used revenue sharing for decades. Since Pete Rozelle became commissioner the focus has been on parity in the league because it is believed that the best way to be successful as a league (and therefore all the teams) is to the make the league the product and not the individual players and teams. It is believed that having parity allows fans to always have hope and therefore sucks them in better than the other sports. It has clearly worked as professional football has gone from an enigmatic fringe league in the 50's to certainly the most popular sport in the US while passing both baseball("America's Pastime") and bastketball by leaps and bounds.
The revenue sharing they currently use is based mostly on TV revenues. See in football the teams do not sign their own tv distribution rights but particpate in the league wide distribution contract which is of course billions of dollars. All this money is divided equally among the teams each year. The amount available plus some other stuff determines each year's salary cap by the way. The other stuff is generally league generated team revenues and the like. In baseball each team does it owns tv deal and basketball has a similar structure as football. Because the NBA plays so many games though the value of the TV contracts is actually less as the supply of games far exceeds the demand whereas in footballl the opposite is true.
The issue that is on the table now is the individal team generated revenues. Stuff like concessions, team apparel, and anything that is generated through individual team marketing. This stuff is not included in the revenue sharing. Te result being that some teams spend upward of 80% of their revenues(total) on salary while others spend maybe 65%. Successful marketing teams like DC and Dallas( you can debate why they are more successful. Snyder and Jones would say they do a better job of marketing while the smaller market teams would say they simply hav a bigger market and therefore more opportunity.) end up spedning near the 65 mark and the smaller market teams complain that it makes it more difficult to sompete. For a league where everyone is supposed to be on the same monetary level this an obvious problem.
I would say that in general I think Snyder probably does the absolute best job of marketing in the league. I don't think it is even close because he has a team that has struggled for over a decade and has turned it into the most valuable sports franchise in the world.
In the end they'e going to have to start including at least some portion of the team revenues simply becuase it is the way the league became successful and to abandon that now would be totally retarded. It seems completely unamerican to me but is has worked for sure and I can't see why they would stop now.

saden1 05-28-2005 11:24 PM

Re: Revenue Sharing.
 
[QUOTE=Ramseyfan]Good post CRT3, you took the words right out of my mouth. Unfortunately, the revenue sharing screws over the 'Skins.[/QUOTE]

How you figure it screws over the Redskins? Or would you prefere teams either go out of business or the NFL turns to the MLB? No one is getting screwed because ultimately a strong and united league is better than weak and fragmented dominated by rich teams.

Here is a question, what would the Redskins do if all of a sudden the Saints said we're moving to Norther Virginia so we can be in a better market? Or the Dallas if the Saints want to move to San Antonio?

Sheriff Gonna Getcha 05-29-2005 01:49 AM

Re: Revenue Sharing.
 
[QUOTE=saden1]How you figure it screws over the Redskins? Or would you prefere teams either go out of business or the NFL turns to the MLB? No one is getting screwed because ultimately a strong and united league is better than weak and fragmented dominated by rich teams.

Here is a question, what would the Redskins do if all of a sudden the Saints said we're moving to Norther Virginia so we can be in a better market? Or the Dallas if the Saints want to move to San Antonio?[/QUOTE]

I'm not disagreeing with the current system. If there were no revenue sharing, competition would go out the window as teams that don't draw as much money might not spend enough on players. So, I am not saying I want the scheme that MLB has.

All I am saying is that it sucks for the Redskins that we don't get to keep all of our revenue. It's unfortunate not only for Daniel Snyder, but also for 'Skins fans since the revenue sharing affects ticket prices.

saden1 05-29-2005 05:21 AM

Re: Revenue Sharing.
 
[QUOTE=Ramseyfan]...It's unfortunate not only for Daniel Snyder, but also for 'Skins fans since the revenue sharing affects ticket prices.[/QUOTE]

Sorry mate, ticket prices have nothing to do with revenue sharing. The thing that drives ticket prices is demand. Redskins have a long waiting list. While they have to be somewhat reasonable they have the luxury of having so many well off people in the DC area on the waiting list.

If revenue sharing had anything to do with ticket prices then NFL teams would be smart to start charging $100 for shitty seats.

Sheriff Gonna Getcha 05-29-2005 05:33 AM

Re: Revenue Sharing.
 
[QUOTE=saden1]Sorry mate, ticket prices have nothing to do with revenue sharing. The thing that drives ticket prices is demand. Redskins have a long waiting list. While they have to be somewhat reasonable they have the luxury of having so many well off people in the DC area on the waiting list.

If revenue sharing had anything to do with ticket prices then NFL teams would be smart to start charging $100 for shitty seats.[/QUOTE]

If a team loses revenue (via revenue sharing), it, like any other company, is going to try to make up such losses by some other method (i.e. jacking up ticket prices, food prices, or whatever else it can get away with). The revenue sharing is essentially a built in cost of doing business in the NFL. Who does that cost get passed onto if not us fans? I'm sure Daniel Snyder isn't going to "take one for the team." That's just my two cents.

But, if you are privy to some information that I am not, please share it.

BigSKINBauer 05-29-2005 09:48 AM

Re: Revenue Sharing.
 
This is an idea right it hasn't been approved. This is just as likely to pass as the idea saying that a team's salary cap will be determined by its revenue which i think is bogus . Obviously it will help the skins but i wouldn't want football to become baseball.
But if the idea that we are talking about, the sharing revenues, i would hate it just as much. If an owner knows that they will increase their own profit by doing things for the fans like fan support day or making new stadiums or improving the ones that they have,they will for their own profit. BUUUUUT if they know they are gonna split the shit 32 ways it won't be that great of an incentive to put up a new jumbotron or make special merchandice. The only good i see comming from this is a possible decrease on ticket prices just to build spirit for the team because it doesn't really affect the team it only affects the league allittle with the revenue loss.

Really why would an owner do ANYTHING to increase ticket sales by adding to the stadium if they are gonna end up only getting 1/32 of the profit?

Defensewins 05-29-2005 10:14 AM

Re: Revenue Sharing.
 
[QUOTE=Daseal]Could someone explain this to me a bit? From what I understand the teams that make more money (Redskins, Cowboys, Raiders, etc.) have to share money with teams that don't? To me this doesn't make sense at all. Owners like Snyder get crucified for being a money hungry wolf, then is forced to share his money? He spends a lot of money marketing and making the skins have mass appeal -- yet for some reason has to share his income with a team that doesn't work so hard.

Is it simply to make it so poor teams fill the salary cap and keep the league competitive? I just don't understand why successfull owners, at least in the income department, are forced to help owners who aren't nearly as good.[/QUOTE]

I agree with your concern with this system, there is no incentive for the poor teams to be more lucrative and perform on the field.

The NFL's complicated economics works like this:

The NFL is making about $5.2 billion in revenue per year. Every owner starts out with nearly $100 million a year each from national television and radio contracts and national sponsorships. In addition they get one-third of ticket revenue from each game played, which is pooled and redistributed equally among all teams. The clubs also receive equal portions from a 12 percent royalty on every NFL-branded piece of merchandise. In all, about $3 billion of the $5.2 billion pot is shared equally.
Under the current collective bargaining agreement, which expires at the end of the 2007 season, an annual ceiling is placed on player payrolls of about 65 percent of defined league revenues. So even if Snyder makes more money, he cannot spend it on players salaries. After the $100 million distribution from the league, teams are largely on their own.
Because Snyder is a smart at generating additional revenue, the Redskins' annual revenue has increased from more than $100 million a year when Snyder took over the team in 1999 to around $245 million. So this proves there is no correlation between high-revenue teams and winning percentage. And no correlation between salaries paid and winning percentage.

My major problem with this system is seeing cheap teams like the Cardinals perform so poorly on the field and the owner is a cheap lazy SOB. But yet he is pocketing millions and under spending by $10m on players salaries. Then he complains when his stadium is empty. He is creating the problem. He has not incentive to improve, because the leagus is subsidizing his team. Hard working owners like Snyder are paying his salary and bills.

Daseal 05-29-2005 11:51 AM

Re: Revenue Sharing.
 
Thanks a lot guys, you really helped to clear it up for me. I think a little revenue sharing is nice, but what they're going for now sounds like too much in my opinion!

Carnage 05-29-2005 12:32 PM

Re: Revenue Sharing.
 
The thing that steams me the most about this issue is the teams most often involved in the complaining are the Cardinals and the Colts.
These owners, or their parents, moved their teams from major markets, and in the case of the Colts, removed themselves from the tradition of victory and inter-generational fandom that we enjoy.
This is the business model that traditional teams will always have. If I get a chance to see the skins I go, even if the season is in the tank. The Colts can't sell out playoff games, and they would'nt have much more luck in LA.
In both cases, these teams made economic moves that now seem short-sighted. They traded newer facilities for small markets .
Why should the NFL or the free-market system reward this.

wolfeskins 05-29-2005 01:16 PM

Re: Revenue Sharing.
 
everyone on here is making some very good points. the only thing i can say is "if it aint broke, don't fix it".
things should stay as they are as long as the league can remain strong and successfull. if the league begins to weaken then they should explore this idea.

Schneed10 05-29-2005 01:42 PM

Re: Revenue Sharing.
 
[QUOTE=Defensewins]I agree with your concern with this system, there is no incentive for the poor teams to be more lucrative and perform on the field.

The NFL's complicated economics works like this:

The NFL is making about $5.2 billion in revenue per year. Every owner starts out with nearly $100 million a year each from national television and radio contracts and national sponsorships. In addition they get one-third of ticket revenue from each game played, which is pooled and redistributed equally among all teams. The clubs also receive equal portions from a 12 percent royalty on every NFL-branded piece of merchandise. In all, about $3 billion of the $5.2 billion pot is shared equally.
Under the current collective bargaining agreement, which expires at the end of the 2007 season, an annual ceiling is placed on player payrolls of about 65 percent of defined league revenues. So even if Snyder makes more money, he cannot spend it on players salaries. After the $100 million distribution from the league, teams are largely on their own.
Because Snyder is a smart at generating additional revenue, the Redskins' annual revenue has increased from more than $100 million a year when Snyder took over the team in 1999 to around $245 million. So this proves there is no correlation between high-revenue teams and winning percentage. And no correlation between salaries paid and winning percentage.

My major problem with this system is seeing cheap teams like the Cardinals perform so poorly on the field and the owner is a cheap lazy SOB. But yet he is pocketing millions and under spending by $10m on players salaries. Then he complains when his stadium is empty. He is creating the problem. He has not incentive to improve, because the leagus is subsidizing his team. Hard working owners like Snyder are paying his salary and bills.[/QUOTE]

Great analysis, you're dead-on.

Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones (the highest revenue generators) contend that less revenue should be shared because of owners like that of the Cards. They contend that there isn't enough incentive for them to market themselves because they can grab a big chunk of shared revenues to make up for their laziness. I agree, to a point. The worst thing that could happen to the league is moving back to the un-capped era. The point was made earlier, Rozelle's theory, that league parity is what leads to compelling drama and interest across the entire country. Without a salary cap, big market teams like our Redskins will outspend the smaller market teams and gain a big advantage in player acquisition. This leads to the PERCEPTION amongst the public that the smaller market teams don't have a chance to compete, and hence interest drops. (It doesn't matter whether wins and losses are actually tied to payroll size or not, what matters is that people PERCEIVE that is the case, and consequently the non-die-hard fans lose interest once they realize their team can't afford to sign the household name players) And when some fans begin losing interest, demand for tickets decreases, as well as the number of people who will watch the games on TV. That leads to declining TV ratings, and that means fewer TV revenues for the NFL. That's the key, those TV revenues are the biggest chunk of the shared pot, if TV revenues start declining, ALL NFL teams will be worse off, including Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones.

Not to mention the quality of the league declines as the big market teams (like the Yanks and the Red Sox) just spend their way into the postseason.

I'm OK with wanting to adjust the amount of shared revenues, but not if it destroys the salary cap system.

BigSKINBauer 05-29-2005 05:24 PM

Re: Revenue Sharing.
 
[QUOTE=Schneed10]Great analysis, you're dead-on.

Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones (the highest revenue generators) contend that less revenue should be shared because of owners like that of the Cards. They contend that there isn't enough incentive for them to market themselves because they can grab a big chunk of shared revenues to make up for their laziness. I agree, to a point. The worst thing that could happen to the league is moving back to the un-capped era. The point was made earlier, Rozelle's theory, that league parity is what leads to compelling drama and interest across the entire country. Without a salary cap, big market teams like our Redskins will outspend the smaller market teams and gain a big advantage in player acquisition. This leads to the PERCEPTION amongst the public that the smaller market teams don't have a chance to compete, and hence interest drops. (It doesn't matter whether wins and losses are actually tied to payroll size or not, what matters is that people PERCEIVE that is the case, and consequently the non-die-hard fans lose interest once they realize their team can't afford to sign the household name players) And when some fans begin losing interest, demand for tickets decreases, as well as the number of people who will watch the games on TV. That leads to declining TV ratings, and that means fewer TV revenues for the NFL. That's the key, those TV revenues are the biggest chunk of the shared pot, if TV revenues start declining, ALL NFL teams will be worse off, including Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones.

Not to mention the quality of the league declines as the big market teams (like the Yanks and the Red Sox) just spend their way into the postseason.

I'm OK with wanting to adjust the amount of shared revenues, but not if it destroys the salary cap system.[/QUOTE]

I completely agree, i just don't understand 1 thing,.... i heard that 2007 will be an uncapped year, is this true or will this be resolved. Does that mean we could sign players for 7 years and pay the full amount during that single year. we could cut all the players and not worry bout penalties and sign the probowl team. (I don't want this to happen) Is this a possiblility or will the situation be resolved..... or has it been resolved?

CRT3 05-29-2005 08:56 PM

Re: Revenue Sharing.
 
It has not been resolved, and I have claimed all along the Redskins are playing for that one uncapped year in 2007. A deal to avert this will happen if the owners can agree on revenue sharing which will not happen

MTK 05-29-2005 09:13 PM

Re: Revenue Sharing.
 
Hey CRT3, now that Morton's avatar is gone how about changing your sig?

Schneed10 05-29-2005 11:56 PM

Re: Revenue Sharing.
 
[QUOTE=CRT3]It has not been resolved, and I have claimed all along the Redskins are playing for that one uncapped year in 2007. A deal to avert this will happen if the owners can agree on revenue sharing which will not happen[/QUOTE]

Actually, the movement to continue the salary cap system gained serious steam when two of the owners previously taking up positions in support of Snyder and Jerry Jones backed off and acknowledged that the NFL needs the salary cap. Both Bob McNair of Houston and Robert Kraft of New England have taken up positions in favor of reducing the amount of shared revenues; but they acknowledged this week that a salary cap is necessary.

Then you have Jerry Jones saying things like "we'll find a solution, because we have to. It's just nobody knows what it is yet."

I think he's right. The owners are going to realize a strike year is the last thing they can have happen. Also, director of the NFLPA Gene Upshaw has said that he'd be on firm legal ground by invalidating the existing contract of every NFL player if a new CBA is not reached. I'm not sure if he's right in legal terms, who knows, but if he is that would mean EVERY player in the NFL would become a free agent. It would be a free-for-all.

The owners will ultimately realize that when push comes to shove they need to remain open for business or they won't be able to line their pockets with any revenues, shared or not. They don't want a strike year, so if it means Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones end up sharing an extra 5% more of revenues than they wanted to, then they'll make that sacrifice.

These are the kinds of situations where people play waiting games until the eve of current CBA's expiration. Then leverage begins to play a role in negoatiations, bluffs get called, and deals get worked out. I personally can't see the owners failing to agree on a revenue sharing plan, and from the way Upshaw talks, he's not asking for an unreasonable chunk of cash for the players. He pretty much likes the status quo. I don't see an uncapped year happening.

[url]http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2069744[/url]

skinsguy 05-30-2005 12:07 AM

Re: Revenue Sharing.
 
Wow....reading all of your posts about the revenue sharing has made me alot more familiar with the sticky details! This was an excellent question, Daseal! Before this, I was all for having an uncapped year and to do away with the salary cap, but this might force me to change my thinking on it.

Ah well.....at least if there is a strike year, the Redskins always seems to be at the top of their game! ;-)

wolfeskins 05-30-2005 02:00 AM

Re: Revenue Sharing.
 
yea , you guys have taught me a thing or two in this thread. thanks.

Schneed10 05-30-2005 08:48 AM

Re: Revenue Sharing.
 
[QUOTE=skinsguy]Wow....reading all of your posts about the revenue sharing has made me alot more familiar with the sticky details! This was an excellent question, Daseal! Before this, I was all for having an uncapped year and to do away with the salary cap, but this might force me to change my thinking on it.

Ah well.....at least if there is a strike year, the Redskins always seems to be at the top of their game! ;-)[/QUOTE]

I think an uncapped year would be kinda cool in some ways, because the Redskins would be able to sign whoever they wanted, because they have the most financial ammo. But I don't like baseball's system and I don't want to become the NY Yankees, so for the long haul I'd rather see the salary cap in place.

Plus, I think all the owners as well as Gene Upshaw know that it would be nearly impossible to go back to a salary cap once we had one uncapped year. Once the players got a taste of uncapped salaries they'd never agree to a cap, restricting the payday that the Washington Redskins or Dallas Cowboys would deal out to them. It'd be like the baseball negotiations or NHL negotiations, it'd be like pulling teeth to get back to a salary cap.

CrazyCanuck 05-30-2005 01:59 PM

Re: Revenue Sharing.
 
Great posts guys. Here are my random thoughts:

- Revenue sharing in sports is not only desired but vital. The fact is certain markets will always generate more revenue than others. Without any revenue sharing this discrepency between big markets and small markets would continue to grow exponentially until the quality and competitiveness of the league hits rock bottom (ie MLB).

- Individual people are greedy for the most part. The NFL is lucky because they came up with revenue sharing decades ago when the league had no revenue. If they tried to instate this rule now I don't think it would ever get passed, or the sharing would be much much less.

- The heart of the revenue sharing problem (IMO) is the TV money. That's where the big bucks are and therefore these are the most important revenues to share. Baseball has big problems because every team has their own tv deal and they are far from equal. The Yankees for example have their own tv network, while my beloved Expos actually spent a year with no tv deal AND no radio deal. The only solution I see for baseball involves gathering all the TV rights into one big package so it can be spilt appropriately by the league. But this is almost impossible due to the splintered nature of the market - ESPN, TBS, YES, WGN, NESN, etc.

- Fox sports is baseball's best hope IMO (believe it or not). They already have a bunch of individual tv deals set up. Plus they are big enough that they can split their broadcasts by region (ie Fox east, Fox West, etc.) This way they get the one big tv deal, and still have the capability to broadcast regionally (which is needed for baseball). Once all the TV money is being split evenly then the league might finally start to see some competitiveness and balance between markets.

- Back to football. Like you guys mentioned, teams like the Skins are pissed because they spend effort and energy to increase revenues in creative ways, then have to ship out a bulk of these to other teams who don't lift a finger. This is why the MINIMUM salary cap is just as important as the MAXIMUM. It prevents cheap teams from fielding a crap product and raking in the profits. The minimum cap is also what the players are concerned about, as this is the only amount of money that the union is guarnateed to see. The difference between the min cap and max cap is like $20M, so even today some teams are raking in an extra $20M just by playing cheap and short-changing their fans. This is why I think we should be grateful to have Snyder as owner.

- It's a tough debate as to what is fair regarding the side revenues that currently are not shared (ie luxury boxes, etc.). I'll let you guys debate it. My view is that any inherent advantage (ie larger markets) should be removed through revenue sharing, while anything that is already on a level playing field should not. This way hard work and creativity are rewarded while greed and frugality are not.

Sorry for the long rant.

CrazyCanuck 05-30-2005 02:01 PM

Re: Revenue Sharing.
 
...and as for the uncapped year - no, nyet, nunga.

Schneed10 05-30-2005 03:13 PM

Re: Revenue Sharing.
 
[QUOTE=CrazyCanuck]Great posts guys. Here are my random thoughts:

- Revenue sharing in sports is not only desired but vital. The fact is certain markets will always generate more revenue than others. Without any revenue sharing this discrepency between big markets and small markets would continue to grow exponentially until the quality and competitiveness of the league hits rock bottom (ie MLB).

- Individual people are greedy for the most part. The NFL is lucky because they came up with revenue sharing decades ago when the league had no revenue. If they tried to instate this rule now I don't think it would ever get passed, or the sharing would be much much less.

- The heart of the revenue sharing problem (IMO) is the TV money. That's where the big bucks are and therefore these are the most important revenues to share. Baseball has big problems because every team has their own tv deal and they are far from equal. The Yankees for example have their own tv network, while my beloved Expos actually spent a year with no tv deal AND no radio deal. The only solution I see for baseball involves gathering all the TV rights into one big package so it can be spilt appropriately by the league. But this is almost impossible due to the splintered nature of the market - ESPN, TBS, YES, WGN, NESN, etc.

- Fox sports is baseball's best hope IMO (believe it or not). They already have a bunch of individual tv deals set up. Plus they are big enough that they can split their broadcasts by region (ie Fox east, Fox West, etc.) This way they get the one big tv deal, and still have the capability to broadcast regionally (which is needed for baseball). Once all the TV money is being split evenly then the league might finally start to see some competitiveness and balance between markets.

- Back to football. Like you guys mentioned, teams like the Skins are pissed because they spend effort and energy to increase revenues in creative ways, then have to ship out a bulk of these to other teams who don't lift a finger. This is why the MINIMUM salary cap is just as important as the MAXIMUM. It prevents cheap teams from fielding a crap product and raking in the profits. The minimum cap is also what the players are concerned about, as this is the only amount of money that the union is guarnateed to see. The difference between the min cap and max cap is like $20M, so even today some teams are raking in an extra $20M just by playing cheap and short-changing their fans. This is why I think we should be grateful to have Snyder as owner.

- It's a tough debate as to what is fair regarding the side revenues that currently are not shared (ie luxury boxes, etc.). I'll let you guys debate it. My view is that any inherent advantage (ie larger markets) should be removed through revenue sharing, while anything that is already on a level playing field should not. This way hard work and creativity are rewarded while greed and frugality are not.

Sorry for the long rant.[/QUOTE]

Great perspective. I love your posts, they come too few and far between!

CrazyCanuck 05-30-2005 03:40 PM

Re: Revenue Sharing.
 
[QUOTE=Schneed10]Great perspective. I love your posts, they come too few and far between![/QUOTE]

Well guys like you always seem to hit the nail on the head, leaving me with nothing to add! I think it's great that there are so many knowledgebale fans on this site.

PS - New cap sheets are on the way soon. Sorry for the delay but not much happening this time of year.

CRT3 05-30-2005 05:20 PM

Re: Revenue Sharing.
 
[QUOTE=Mattyk72]Hey CRT3, now that Morton's avatar is gone how about changing your sig?[/QUOTE] Is Morton gone?

monk81 05-30-2005 07:33 PM

Re: Revenue Sharing.
 
[QUOTE=skinsguy]Wow....reading all of your posts about the revenue sharing has made me alot more familiar with the sticky details! This was an excellent question, Daseal! Before this, I was all for having an uncapped year and to do away with the salary cap, but this might force me to change my thinking on it.

Ah well.....at least if there is a strike year, the Redskins always seems to be at the top of their game! ;-)[/QUOTE]

And Joe Gibbs did a fantastic job with the replacement players too!

:httr:

monk81 05-30-2005 07:47 PM

Re: Revenue Sharing.
 
[QUOTE=CrazyCanuck]Great posts guys. Here are my random thoughts:

- Revenue sharing in sports is not only desired but vital. The fact is certain markets will always generate more revenue than others. Without any revenue sharing this discrepency between big markets and small markets would continue to grow exponentially until the quality and competitiveness of the league hits rock bottom (ie MLB).

- Individual people are greedy for the most part. The NFL is lucky because they came up with revenue sharing decades ago when the league had no revenue. If they tried to instate this rule now I don't think it would ever get passed, or the sharing would be much much less.

-.[/QUOTE]

Excellent Post CrazyCanuck.......................
When you compare the NFL to the other major sports leagues NBA, MLB, and the now suspended NHL, the NFL is the most successful. Revenue sharing and the way the NFL salary cap is structured are the things that have helped, and enables Green Bay with a population of 100,000 to compete at the same level as big markets such as New York, or owners with deep pockets Snyder/Jones for example--the league MUST HAVE revenue sharing. At the same time they have allowed free agency for the players. I would still like the NFL to institute a rookie cap for the first 3 years......similar to the NBA.....so the NFL teams can see how the rookie pans out before tying up lots of cap money, over a long contract on an unknown. especially if a rookie doesn't pan out, even if they cut that player, the team takes a huge cap hit, especially if he was a top rookie QB prospect or a #1 draft pick!. To enable a team to keep players I'd also like to see a veteran exception for the salary cap, if a player has played with the same team for 5 years..........

Your right though a lot of this collective bargaining agreement, is tied into the new TV contracts....the players want their share which is only fair.

FRPLG 05-31-2005 08:41 AM

Re: Revenue Sharing.
 
One thing to remember when comparing sports since it seems pretty universal that nobody wants a system like baseball:
Baseball and football operate in vastly different ways. Because of history and such baseball teams operate separately and distinctly. A bunch of individual entities owned and operated by seperate people who have agreed to compete together in one of two leagues. The teams are as seperate as possible. Only recently has the central government of baseball increased it's power and that was because the group owners saw how football was kicking their ass. Football on the other hand operates with much greater synergy. The league government has all the power. The teams operate together as one big entity. This has given them greater leverage in labor negotiations compared to baseball. The single most important thing to come from this synergistic operating scheme is the salary cap. I doubt the owners will ever let a day go by without a cap. Even for only one season. I do think that the players are going to end up getting a hefty increase in both the minimum and maximum salalry caps. The key here is that the owners are going to settle their differences first. If the owners agree to start including the outside revenue then the players will most certainly demand a greater cap increase since the monies shared are greater. This will in turn simply decrease the desired effect of sharing more money as the increased salaries will in effect offset the new money to the smaller market teams. It won't help them any really. Maybe a bit but not much. It will hurt teams like the Skins who rely heavily on cash on hand to pay salaries. They pay big bonuses that require a lot of liquid cash since it all goes out at once. They will then have less to spend essentially. This all adds up to major labor issues. In the end my guess based on some of the more technical stuff I have read seems to indicate that there will be little movement on the sharing outside of minor adjustments to help smaller market teams a little. The thing is that nobody in the NFL can say they aren't making money and why would they jeopardize it by creating a situation that may lead to greater labor issues?

SmootSmack 06-09-2005 09:19 PM

Re: Revenue Sharing.
 
This is a good [URL=http://www.jaguars.com/story/4408.asp]read[/URL]

monk81 06-12-2005 01:20 PM

Re: Revenue Sharing.
 
This says it all.......

"Large-market teams such as Washington, Dallas and Houston, of course, are obvious opponents to such a strategy. Those three teams would say that if you're going to share my revenue, you should also have to share my debt. Purchase prices, franchise fees and new stadiums are driving those teams' debts and they argue that they need their local revenues to address those debts."

I know Jerrah is looking for help in builing the Cryboys new stadium in Arlington to open in 2009. Although the Taxpayers agreed to help build the $650 milliion stadium, the opperative word is HELP. Jerrah will need some big bucks to make up the difference his pockets aren't that deep. Jerry has always found a loop hole around revenue sharing.....be it......league has Coke as the official drink of the NFL-he gets a contract with Pepsi, he got a contract with Nike, and every company in little D is the official product of the Dallas Cowboys.......

monk81 06-12-2005 01:42 PM

Re: Revenue Sharing.
 
[url]http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/football/nfl/06/03/bc.fbn.labor.vincentbjt.ap/[/url]

The players union wants revenue sharing too, and this has to be cleared up before they can negotiate a new CBA.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:47 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
We have no official affiliation with the Washington Commanders or the NFL.

Page generated in 1.00890 seconds with 9 queries