Revenue Sharing.

monk81 · 05-30-2005, 07:33 PM

Quote:

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! ;-)

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

FRPLG · 05-31-2005, 08:41 AM

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

This is a good read

monk81 · 06-12-2005, 01:20 PM

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

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...vincentbjt.ap/

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

05-31-2005, 08:41 AM	#2
FRPLG MVP Join Date: May 2004 Age: 46 Posts: 10,164	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?

06-09-2005, 09:19 PM	#3
SmootSmack Uncle Phil Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 45,256	Re: Revenue Sharing. This is a good read __________________ You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You

06-12-2005, 01:20 PM	#4
monk81 The Starter Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: TEXAS Posts: 2,029	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....... __________________ "It's absolutely criminal, in my opinion, that Monk has yet to be enshrined (in the Pro-Football Hall of Fame)" Dan Arkush PFW

06-12-2005, 01:42 PM	#5
monk81 The Starter Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: TEXAS Posts: 2,029	Re: Revenue Sharing. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...vincentbjt.ap/ The players union wants revenue sharing too, and this has to be cleared up before they can negotiate a new CBA. __________________ "It's absolutely criminal, in my opinion, that Monk has yet to be enshrined (in the Pro-Football Hall of Fame)" Dan Arkush PFW Last edited by monk81; 06-12-2005 at 02:10 PM.

Revenue Sharing.

Locker Room Main Forum