thr0xx Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/02/AR2006020202350.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDSCNZ20 Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 yea.. go snyder.. some props.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz1972 Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 yea.. go snyder.. some props.. so,upshaw supports danny snyder? arent they all billionaires,if so why is the commish calling them"needier"teams? that is a slap in the face to the real needy ppl in america. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 so,upshaw supports danny snyder? arent they all billionaires,if so why is the commish calling them"needier"teams? that is a slap in the face to the real needy ppl in america. :doh: Tags supports Snyder. By the way...one of the other prosperous organizations he's referring to wouldn't happen to be a certain ball club in Philthy, now could it?? High revenue club that spends next to nothing on its players??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz1972 Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 there are no "needier"teams in the nfl,they are all billionaires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDSCNZ20 Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 i think that comment is directed towards NE and Philly.. because they have been winning.... thats their selling point. but at some point that turns on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlsbadd Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 :doh: Tags supports Snyder.By the way...one of the other prosperous organizations he's referring to wouldn't happen to be a certain ball club in Philthy, now could it?? High revenue club that spends next to nothing on its players??? No, Philly has a pretty high payroll also, it may seem that they are cheap but there payroll is something like 2nd to ours. The owners in Philly support Snyder and Jones objections to sharing revenue because they have a pretty good thing going now with the new staduim and selling a boatload of Jerseys. You have to remember that the NFL gives each club 100 million each year of the shared revenue to run thier clubs. Some clubs do not try to grow thier markets while others (Snyder, Jones, Kraft) truly run it as a business. Why should the smart business people pay for the ones that are doing nothing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 I dunno, but I find that Snyder comment rather kind of a big deal. Good for Dan The Man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sableholic Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Thank you for the article, but may I suggest that you edit your post and not include the full-text of the article. Copyright reasons and what not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BD Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Upshaw's making the right point he ought to as a union head: owners who make money should invest it in their teams. This is bad for parity because it hurts owners with less cash flow, but it's great for players, because they reap the benefits. BD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCSKINZ80 Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 What bugs me is that these other so called "needier" teams didn't have to fork out 800 million like Dan Snyder did for the Redskins. Snyder has a debt servicing bill that dwarfs these other teams. So yes, we do generate a ton of revenue but I also believe we have the most expenses. It seems very unfair, in a business sense, that local revenues should be shared amongst teams. If the so-called needier teams want more money, then they should invest in their teams and brand similar to what Snyder has done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoCommiesGo Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 I like to see The Dan getting some love from the players rep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweet Sassy Molassy Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 I'm not seeing the link, or the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoeRedskins Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Could you post a link or something? The dots don't explain much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDane Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Oh no... :paranoid: I feel...a....random.......post.... no, must not- random post .... it comes.... random Egg balls and flying bourgeois tablets! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDane Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/02/AR2006020202350.html Upshaw's Snyder quotation: The two sets of negotiations are taking place simultaneously, and Upshaw said the biggest holdup to deals on both fronts is that some owners of the most prosperous clubs are taking advantage of the current system. He said he does not include the Washington Redskins' Daniel Snyder in that category."You have to take Dan Snyder out," Upshaw said. "He's completely different. He's got a high-revenue club, and he spends money on his players. We like that. There are high-revenue clubs who are spending less than $66 million on their players, and that's out of $300 million. That's not a fair share." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-Prime Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Ok guys what some of these "needier" teams are wanting is 100% profit sharing which is absolute bull. Daniel Snyder and other owners have worked their buts of helped produce a market, instead of being satisfied with the one that was already there, they increased it.. It's like You live next to a guy who doesn't have a good job like you do, but there is a law passed that says you have to share the profits from your good job with him, so he can afford to stay in his house.. Most of us would say "Pfft F that" It's the same of course on a large scale and we're talking about Markets rather then jobs. If the market isn't there to support the team then the team should be moved and or disbanded period. I don't disagree with some amount of profit sharing, but if there is a team in such a poor market that it begins to bring down the rest of the league then it needs to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDane Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Goth, I agree, but unfortunately one can argue that a football team is a "public good" for its city/region. Therefore, there will always be some sort of "tax" on franchises, and a re-distribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, in order to maintain the "public good" for that reagion. I doubt you'll never get rid of that concept, unfortunately. But still, I want to limit that "tax" as much as possible, just like Dan Snyder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dockeryfan Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 How can this work? You enter into a business arrangement, spend a ton of money to acquire a team, and then someone fargs with your revenue stream by forcing you to share with other teams? It's not right. It's not fair practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDane Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 How can this work?You enter into a business arrangement, spend a ton of money to acquire a team, and then someone fargs with your revenue stream by forcing you to share with other teams? It's not right. It's not fair practice. It is fair practice if you knew about the risk of those rules before purchasing the franchise, as Dan Snyder certainly did. It's called due diligence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlsbadd Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 It is fair practice if you knew about the risk of those rules before purchasing the franchise, as Dan Snyder certainly did. It's called due diligence. True but they are talking about sharing revenue outside what is already agreed upon. Remember each team already has 100 million in shared revenue. Now they are talking about getting even more from the teams that have been able to market themselves and be a success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDane Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 True but they are talking about sharing revenue outside what is already agreed upon. Remember each team already has 100 million in shared revenue. Now they are talking about getting even more from the teams that have been able to market themselves and be a success. Hey, I'm agreeing in that I disagree with more revenue sharing. However, this is a risk that you can bet that Snyder identified before buying the franchise. And therefore, to call this "unfair" isn't right. It's unnecessary and anti-competitive, but it's within the owners' and league's rights to ask for this sort of thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monte51Coleman Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Don't forget that many of the owners have fattened themselves at the public trough as well. They get taxpayers to, in essence, build them a venue for their betterment. To go cheap in that situation is pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlsbadd Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Hey, I'm agreeing in that I disagree with more revenue sharing. However, this is a risk that you can bet that Snyder identified before buying the franchise. And therefore, to call this "unfair" isn't right. It's unnecessary and anti-competitive, but it's within the owners' and league's rights to ask for this sort of thing. Gotcha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenster95 Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Ahhh . . . no union, no nonstatutory labor exemption . . . no exemption, antitrust law applies . . . antitrust law applies, no cap allowable . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.