Revenue Sharing.

[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

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/column...len&id=2069744

[Daseal]

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]

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]

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.

[MTK]

Hey CRT3, now that Morton's avatar is gone how about changing your sig?

[CRT3]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Hey CRT3, now that Morton's avatar is gone how about changing your sig?

Is Morton gone?

[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! ;-)

[wolfeskins]

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

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by 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! ;-)

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]

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]

...and as for the uncapped year - no, nyet, nunga.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[CrazyCanuck]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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

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.

[monk81]

Originally Posted by 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.

-.

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.