Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Question about Revenue Sharing and its Fairness


EnFoRcEr_uPu

Recommended Posts

As far as I can tell, one of the holdups is that the higher-revenue teams such as the Redskins do not want to be forced to share revenue with teams that do not make as much money as them. Now, obviously this makes perfect sense, I mean, why SHOULD they have to share it with them? But with the difference in teams today, it's almost necessary in order to keep things going in a straight line. So while I agree that it SHOULD be shared, what are those teams, such as the Redskins again, that are going to be forced to share their revenue, going to be given as compensation? I mean, say we're to give up another 10% of our anual revenue, what would we receive in return? Because it doesn't seem fair to me if their is no sort of compensation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What exactly do they share now and what do they want a piece of? I know they all get the same for the tv rights and NFL merchanise sold. Are the small market teams wanting a piece of ticket and concession sales? There isn't much in the way of local tv like say baseball, so I just don't get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What exactly do they share now and what do they want a piece of? I know they all get the same for the tv rights and NFL merchanise sold. Are the small market teams wanting a piece of ticket and concession sales? There isn't much in the way of local tv like say baseball, so I just don't get it.

You know all the adds run at FedEx on game day? All the advertising? They want a piece of that too. Stadium naming rights, they want some of that pie. Parking, lets split that up.

That kind of stuff is what they are taking about when they say they want a % of local revenues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I gather is that the Union has no problem with the teams that spend there dollars on players, no matter what the size of thier market.

The issue is with the teams that make a good profit but are cheap and spend just above the minimum cap.

The starting popint is that each team gets 300 million of shared revenue to run thier clubs as it is now.

I am not sure what the league is proposing raising that to with the new tv contract but that is outside the additional sharing of revenue that is being talked about.

Bob Craft has a point that if teams are going to share the local revenue , then where does items like staduim debt come into play?

If you have a staduim that is shared by tax payers dollars as opposed to teams that build their own how ,do you calculate the difference in revenue sharing.

I think this may be a sticking point about the whole mess ,and that is how do you define these issues when it comes to local revenues?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's ridiculous! You must make each team whole or equal until you share; i.e., Snyder has spent much more capital. Create a ledger with a paid-in-capital account and bring every owner equal, or on par prior to sharing. Why should Snyder who bought a stadium (capital risk) and creates higher margins share it with a cheap Eagles owner? Let the other owners buy stadiums and increase their margins instead of some lousy city stadium deal whereby they get 10-15% of concessions, parking, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the teams that don't own their stadiums and give a portion of their earnings to the city it doesn't seem fair to the owners that put out the money and bought everything. It would be interesting to see how much each team earned a year after paying their debts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even though we're talking about a group of guys who belong to an exclusive club that costs millions to join, the underlying concept that more innovative, modern owners who create diverse revenue streams is no different from you or me. I would be truly embarrassed if I had to go hold out my hat to someone who held the same job title, but with a different organization or company that made more money than I did. The trouble is, I lack the audacity of a penny-pinching rube like Ralph Wilson or Bill Bidwill, just two guys among many who would rather hoard their profits than spend them to create new sources of revenue. Heck, it's good work if you can get others to do your work for you and expect to make the same whether you sit on the porch or decide to pick up a shovel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the teams that don't own their stadiums and give a portion of their earnings to the city it doesn't seem fair to the owners that put out the money and bought everything. It would be interesting to see how much each team earned a year after paying their debts.

Thats their problem.

This fairness BS has to end and hopefully Danny stands his ground.

Owners that are cheap can always sell to richer owners who will spend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I can tell, one of the holdups is that the higher-revenue teams such as the Redskins do not want to be forced to share revenue with teams that do not make as much money as them. Now, obviously this makes perfect sense, I mean, why SHOULD they have to share it with them? But with the difference in teams today, it's almost necessary in order to keep things going in a straight line. So while I agree that it SHOULD be shared, what are those teams, such as the Redskins again, that are going to be forced to share their revenue, going to be given as compensation? I mean, say we're to give up another 10% of our anual revenue, what would we receive in return? Because it doesn't seem fair to me if their is no sort of compensation.

We?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to mention some of the shared money would include money that fans spend. I know my parking and hotdog don't amount to much in the grand scheme, but I don't want money I spend at FedEx to go to the Chargers, Cardinals or any other team for that matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if they allow the greater revenue sharing amounts, they smaller market owners should be held to a higher standard. They should be forced to find and generate new revenue streams, and if they can't do it, force them to sell their teams.

Who would want to go into a sales business where you were expected to sell the most to maintain a group revenue figure. But when it comes to slicing up the profit pie, everyone gets the same amount.

What incentive is there for the smaller market teams to do anything, when they know that the larger market teams are going to do the work for them? They aren't even forced to spend the full amount given to them now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get over it man...some people on this board like to refer to their team as "we" sometimes. I never understood those who felt the need to make fun of that action.

I don't using we as a shorthand for discussing the actual play of the team: "We need to catch the ball....We need to pick up the blitz...whatever."

But when discussing a CBA agreement, it's just weird to me. It's not like any of us are getting dividend checks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So while I agree that it SHOULD be shared, what are those teams, such as the Redskins again, that are going to be forced to share their revenue, going to be given as compensation? I mean, say we're to give up another 10% of our anual revenue, what would we receive in return? Because it doesn't seem fair to me if their is no sort of compensation.

A thank you from a bunch of cry-baby multi-millionaires.

If that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Communism. That's right, I said it - communism. That's basically the system the smaller revenue teams want to set up here. And to be perfectly honest, the NFL is ran in a semi-communist form as it is now, all the teams share the massive TV contracts and all other profits except the locally generated profits. I don't see why teams like the Skins, who make so much of their money off locally generated profits made from creative, smart, investing, should have to give away their hard earned profits. All that would do is give the smaller revenue teams more incentieve not to earn their own profits. What a sweet deal this would be for the Cardnials or the Jaguars, who can't even fill their own stadiums, let alone generate substantial local profits through creative marketing. Just like in communism, this "total" collective bargining deal would promote a "free-rider" effect. Where is the incentive to generate your own profits if you can simply rely on the Daniel Snyders and Jerry Joneses of the league to do it all for you? I'd rather field 25 rookies next year than give in to these socialists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Communism. That's right, I said it - communism. That's basically the system the smaller revenue teams want to set up here. And to be perfectly honest, the NFL is ran in a semi-communist form as it is now, all the teams share the massive TV contracts and all other profits except the locally generated profits. I don't see why teams like the Skins, who make so much of their money off locally generated profits made from creative, smart, investing, should have to give away their hard earned profits. All that would do is give the smaller revenue teams more incentieve not to earn their own profits. What a sweet deal this would be for the Cardnials or the Jaguars, who can't even fill their own stadiums, let alone generate substantial local profits through creative marketing. Just like in communism, this "total" collective bargining deal would promote a "free-rider" effect. Where is the incentive to generate your own profits if you can simply rely on the Daniel Snyders and Jerry Joneses of the league to do it all for you? I'd rather field 25 rookies next year than give in to these socialists.

Thank you, Rush Limbaugh.

The NFL IS a collective. If the Cardinals, Packers, and Bengals fail, it hurts the Skins. Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones can't make money playing each other 16 times a year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you' date=' Rush Limbaugh.

The NFL IS a collective. If the Cardinals, Packers, and Bengals fail, it hurts the Skins. Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones can't make money playing each other 16 times a year.[/quote']

Again, very true, but you're also exaggerating the point.

Most of those teams don't HAVE to fail. If Bidwell doesn't want to spend money on players, someone else can buy the team from him who will.

You don't need to make it sound as though without revenue sharing, the league will suddenly be contracted to 8 teams or something...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the point of some of these owner's meetings was to share ideas to help grow the league. If the older vanguard of the league won't get on board with some of the new marketing ideas, then maybe selling their respective teams is something they should entertain. But don't penalize the owners that do choose to exercise their rights to profit further with innovation by trying to stick your hand in their wallets because you're either unwilling or too bothered to attempt improving your station. Sheesh, these guys are millionaires and billionaires, you'd think this would be common sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, very true, but you're also exaggerating the point.

Most of those teams don't HAVE to fail. If Bidwell doesn't want to spend money on players, someone else can buy the team from him who will.

You don't need to make it sound as though without revenue sharing, the league will suddenly be contracted to 8 teams or something...

"Fail" is a strong word. I am thinking that the NFL will have a similar situation as MLB where they have 6 teams that will always be competitive. 6 teams that can build themselves into short-term contenders. 6 teams that could catch lightning in a bottle. And the rest that are hopeless.

A bad owner can kill a team in any system. The worst owner in sports is Donald Starling and he is in a league where every salary system is very easy to grasp and guaranteed to spread players around the league.

Bidwell is a bad owner. But unless a Bill Gates type bought the Cardinals as a toy and didn't mind losing money, the Cardinals will have a very very difficult time being profitable in a non revenue sharing/non capped environment under any owner. They are in an indifferent city in a bad stadium.

I mean, would you sit in aluminum seats in the dessert in September to watch Kurt Warner?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...