Revenue Sharing

saden1 · 03-07-2006, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

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.

Sammy Baugh Fan · 03-07-2006, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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

GoSkins! · 03-07-2006, 08:35 PM

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 ...

com·mu·nism

( P ) Pronunciation Key (k

m

y

-n

z

m)
n.

A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

...From dictionary.com

70Chip · 03-07-2006, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoSkins!

In America, we call this ...

com·mu·nism

( P ) Pronunciation Key (k

m

y

-n

z

m)
n.

A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

...From dictionary.com

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.

saden1 · 03-07-2006, 09:02 PM

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

LongTimeSkinsFan · 03-07-2006, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

CRT3 · 03-07-2006, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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

LongTimeSkinsFan · 03-07-2006, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CRT3

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

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?

saden1 · 03-07-2006, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

LongTimeSkinsFan · 03-07-2006, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

dan_snyder69 · 03-07-2006, 08:07 PM

Well said Sammy!

Sammy Baugh Fan · 03-07-2006, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dan_snyder69

Well said Sammy!

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

dan_snyder69 · 03-07-2006, 09:02 PM

Burnnnnn!

JWsleep · 03-08-2006, 01:28 AM

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?

That Guy · 03-08-2006, 03:04 AM

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.

03-07-2006, 08:35 PM	#3
GoSkins! The Starter Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Yorktown, Va Age: 56 Posts: 1,587	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 ... com·mu·nism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kmy-nzm) n. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members. ...From dictionary.com __________________ Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts. A. Einstien

03-07-2006, 09:02 PM	#5
saden1 MVP Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Seattle Age: 46 Posts: 10,069	Re: Revenue Sharring In America, we call the NFL a monopoly. Actually even worse, it's a monopoly with its own subset of monopolies. __________________ "The Redskins have always suffered from chronic organizational deformities under Snyder." -Jenkins

03-07-2006, 08:07 PM	#11
dan_snyder69 Camp Scrub Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: maryland & south carolina Posts: 92	Re: Revenue Sharring Well said Sammy! __________________ Moving to the South only has one drawback: No FedEx Field!

03-07-2006, 09:02 PM	#13
dan_snyder69 Camp Scrub Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: maryland & south carolina Posts: 92	Re: Revenue Sharring Burnnnnn! __________________ Moving to the South only has one drawback: No FedEx Field!

03-08-2006, 01:28 AM	#14
JWsleep Propane and propane accessories Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Houston, TX Age: 56 Posts: 4,719	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? __________________ Hail from Houston!

03-08-2006, 03:04 AM	#15
That Guy Living Legend Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: VA Age: 42 Posts: 17,620	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.

Revenue Sharing

Locker Room Main Forum