bubba9497 Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/peter_king/03/01/labor.deal.qa/index.html click link for full article NFL heads for uncharted territory Lack of labor deal will have big effect on free agency SI.com asked Peter King eight questions about the NFL's inability to complete the collective bargaining agreement as free agency rapidly approaches. SI.com: Where do we stand on the NFL labor agreement as of right now? KING: You got a glimpse of the future late Wednesday afternoon when Denver cut three players integral to its recent success: DL Trevor Pryce, RB Mike Anderson and TE Jeb Putzier. This is an obvious indication that the NFL isn't going to make a deal with the players because Denver had to trim significant money from its 2006 salary-cap figure. If the owners had been able to make a deal with the players, the cap number would have been about $10 million higher than it's going to be -- probably about $95 million. So Denver becomes first team to puts its cards on the table and show what the new reality in the NFL is going to be like without a collective-bargaining agreement. SI.com: Why is there a potential $10 million difference in the 2006 salary-cap number? KING: Because the players want approximately 60 percent of all football revenue. That includes luxury boxes, local TV and radio rights and heretofore other premium dollars that have not been shared. The league is offering about 56.2 percent of all football revenue. The $10 million difference is the approximate difference in what the NFL would be giving the players if the two sides could reach a new labor agreement. SI.com: How did it get to this point? KING: As the NFL had tremendous prosperity in the 1990s, the value of franchises rose dramatically. When Bob McNair paid approximately $800 million to field a new team and stadium in Houston, owners were giddy the value of franchises had skyrocketed that high. But the flip side of that bonanza is being felt now. When someone puts down $800 million to buy a team, he doesn't take it out of his wallet. he has to borrow a good deal of the money. So an owner like McNair, as well as several others who bought franchises recently, have had to work extremely hard to raise revenue aside from the ticket sales and television rights fees all teams share. McNair has to sell luxury suites and use that money to help pay his debt. So players see all this money coming into Houston and say we want a bigger piece of the pie. McNair says "Whoa, I have to pay this massive debt. We already share enough money with you." And that has been one of the big problems that just can't get solved: How much from the multi-millions for premium seating should players be able to get their hands on? The two sides just can't agree on a number. SI.com: Are you saying that the NFL is not going to become like baseball, with tremendous difference in teams' ability to put competitive teams on the field? KING: That's exactly what I'm saying. In baseball, the Yankees can spend $210 million on players, while a team in its own division, Tampa Bay, spends about $35 million. In the NFL, even if Daniel Snyder takes in $300 million over the course of the year and buys up five premier free agents every year, even the teams at the bottom of the financial totem pole -- e.g., Buffalo, Jacksonville -- will have $160 to $170 million of gross revenue to play with. Obviously, it won't be as egalitarian a system as the one the league has now. And it won't be as good a system, but we're not headed for any sort of football Armageddon. And don't let anyone tell you differently. Okay Monday it was Snyder and Jones were being greedy and holding up the extension. Even though Snyder also paid $800 million for the Redskins and the Stadium.... yet McNair is just trying to pay the bills??? and again another greedy owner over spending reference ala Steinbrenner I know just another "the media hates Snyder/Redskins conspiracy" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDFan5 Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 McNair is still in debt from his purchase Snyder I believe is out of the red. there is a big difference between them in revnues and worth As for the Steinbreener thing man look around this site 100's of posts talking abiout Snyder should be like Steinbrenner i guess they are all bias too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted March 2, 2006 Author Share Posted March 2, 2006 McNair is still in debt from his purchase Snyder I believe is out of the red. there is a big difference between them in revenues and worth uh no, he's still paying, and not that big a difference in money (if it mattered)McNair is one of the Big Revenue "9" really no difference at all, except the way King spins it As for the Steinbreener thing man look around this site 100's of posts talking abiout Snyder should be like Steinbrenner i guess they are all bias too? obviously.... take off your blue and silver glasses, and read the context in the manor it's written. oh let's not forget, Snyder & Bowlen have been reported as willing to give some to get deal done... meaning he is not holding up anything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 This is a situation where you have on one side of the fence, owners who have worked hard to earn their money. On the other side, you see people who have not(poorer owners) and individuals who see the money and say they want more. Its not about entitlement, its about people who dont deserve the money being too greedy. The greed is on the players and smaller owners side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xameil Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 I thought the main deal was The "big 9" don't want to share local revenue with the other clubs. They don't want to give money to clubs who aren't going to put it back into their teams and pay players appropriately. King makes it sound like the big 9 don't want to pay players, when isn't it the other way? The smaller clubs don't want to pay their players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frommd Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 King makes it sound like the big 9 don't want to pay players, when isn't it the other way? The smaller clubs don't want to pay their players. I think it's that the smaller clubs don't want to pay players out of their own pockets. Better if the big money owners give them the money instead. I say make them pay or sell their teams. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xameil Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 I think it's that the smaller clubs don't want to pay players out of their own pockets. Better if the big money owners give them the money instead. I say make them pay or sell their teams. :2cents: exactly. If the owners don't want to pay their players, let them do something else for a living. Why should the big money teams who already pay their players appropriately pay the salary of a competitor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thespaniard Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 [quote name=bubba9497 Okay Monday it was Snyder and Jones were being greedy and holding up the extension. Even though Snyder also paid $800 million for the Redskins and the Stadium.... yet McNair is just trying to pay the bills??? and again another greedy owner over spending reference ala Steinbrenner I know just another "the media hates Snyder/Redskins conspiracy" SI.com: How did it get to this point? KING: As the NFL had tremendous prosperity in the 1990s, the value of franchises rose dramatically. When Bob McNair paid approximately $800 million to field a new team and stadium in Houston, owners were giddy the value of franchises had skyrocketed that high. But the flip side of that bonanza is being felt now. When someone puts down $800 million to buy a team, he doesn't take it out of his wallet. he has to borrow a good deal of the money. So an owner like McNair, as well as several others who bought franchises recently, have had to work extremely hard to raise revenue aside from the ticket sales and television rights fees all teams share. McNair has to sell luxury suites and use that money to help pay his debt. So players see all this money coming into Houston and say we want a bigger piece of the pie. McNair says "Whoa, I have to pay this massive debt. We already share enough money with you." And that has been one of the big problems that just can't get solved: How much from the multi-millions for premium seating should players be able to get their hands on? The two sides just can't agree on a number. He refers indirectly to the skins in the McNair part too. But hey don't let your King bias get in the way of actually reading the article. As for the Steinbrenner stuff, why wouldn't you compare the most profitable/biggest spending franchise in baseball to the most profitable/biggest spending franchise in the NFL, especially when it looks like the NFL could go the way of MLB? oh yeah, WAAAAHHHH!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattGeorge85 Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 The top tier teams have a tremendous amount of success, a loyal fan base, or a large amount of capital to begin with. Without trying to sound too partisan the Redskins have the highest income with tradition and the most loyal fans. The Patriots were garbage for decades, they made some excellrnt decisons and have had a tremendous amount of success. Now they are among the top nine earning teams. While lesser teams cry about how the league is unfair, certain cities are dying for a team. Since I spent my early years in SoCal I'll bring up LA (hate the Rams for moving) needs a team but does not have one. To teams that don't smarten up, improve or FOLD you are expendable. Other cities will replace you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thespaniard Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 take off your blue and silver glasses, and read the context in the manor it's written. Where did King write this article? ...sorry couldn't resist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thespaniard Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 The top tier teams have a tremendous amount of success, a loyal fan base, or a large amount of capital to begin with. Without trying to sound too partisan the Redskins have the highest income with tradition and the most loyal fans. The Patriots were garbage for decades, they made some excellrnt decisons and have had a tremendous amount of success. Now they are among the top nine earning teams. While lesser teams cry about how the league is unfair, certain cities are dying for a team. Since I spent my early years in SoCal I'll bring up LA (hate the Rams for moving) needs a team but does not have one. To teams that don't smarten up, improve or FOLD you are expendable. Other cities will replace you. So basically, all small teams have to do is be the Patriots? Well geez this whole football thing is pretty easy when you put it that way... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ynot Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 I agree, why should teams that promote and do things to bring in Revenue give it to the ones that maybe should have never bought the teams. WHy should some owners who own stadiums have to give money to teams that don't own stadiums. What about the tax payers in some cities who own the stadiums, why should the owners have to give the monies to other teams and players, why should they not repay the city! Why should the owners not get a cut from the NFLPA and the Players for there marketing and advertising. If an Player signs a 10 to 40 million advertising contract the owners do not get a percentage of there revenue! Where is Pittsburgh with the Cap? Did they not win a Superbowl. It was not long ago that the Patriots were at the bottom spending money but look what the Krafts did and now they are in the top 9. Look at the Rams moving to St. Louis as the owner did not want to spend money to get a new stadium and moved to St. Louis as the city gave them a stadium. Mr. Cooke build a stadium when the city could not make a deal and had to do road improvements and build parks also!!! Synder bought the team and is a promotional genious, why should he give more moneys to owners and players. I say it is time to get rid of a couple teams or have them to move to other cities. Look at the Eagles being way below the cap and they were in the NFC chanpionship for how many years!!!! I am behind the big 9 as they call it this time!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawn Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 KING: That's exactly what I'm saying. In baseball, the Yankees can spend $210 million on players, while a team in its own division, Tampa Bay, spends about $35 million. In the NFL, even if Daniel Snyder takes in $300 million over the course of the year and buys up five premier free agents every year, even the teams at the bottom of the financial totem pole -- e.g., Buffalo, Jacksonville -- will have $160 to $170 million of gross revenue to play with. Obviously, it won't be as egalitarian a system as the one the league has now. And it won't be as good a system, but we're not headed for any sort of football Armageddon. And don't let anyone tell you differently.Okay Monday it was Snyder and Jones were being greedy and holding up the extension. Even though Snyder also paid $800 million for the Redskins and the Stadium.... yet McNair is just trying to pay the bills??? and again another greedy owner over spending reference ala Steinbrenner I know just another "the media hates Snyder/Redskins conspiracy" I think you guys are just being a little too sensitive about this kind of comments. he could have very well said Jones and it would make the same point. its not about SNYDER. it was about teams disparity. that's what I got out of this explanation, not that snyder is greedy. geesh...get over it already Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thespaniard Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 I think you guys are just being a little too sensitive about this kind of comments. he could have very well said Jones and it would make the same point. its not about SNYDER. it was about teams disparity. that's what I got out of this explanation, not that snyder is greedy. geesh...get over it already :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimster Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 The teams that own their own stadiums have the ability to make a lot more money, but their overhead is ridiculously more than teams that are in state owned (taxpayer paid for) facilities. As someone mentioned before, teams like Cincy and Buffalo whose stadiums names rights could be sold for a reveunue, but choose not to, want a piece of the $2 mil a year that the Redskins get from FedEx for naming rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.