Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Are you angry that it appears that small market teams may get the better end of this?


88Comrade2000

Recommended Posts

It's called marketing. Selling yourself, your team. Always finding ways to generate more money. I don't know much about how the other big name team owners are doing but Dan Snyder has and is trying all kinds of marketing schemes and investments, all for the good of the team. There's an amusement park and Redskins Hot Dogs just to name a couple. Yes, some owners of the so called small market teams may not generate the same amount of money as Dan Snyder, but then again, most of them are just playing the role of the Welfare Queen (example = Bidwell of Arizona). They would rather sit back and let the large market teams do all of the investing and risk taking while they get to collect the rewards. Sorry people but that's not right and for some people on this board to justify this is beyond comprehension.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Horse Hockey!! The smaller markets are claiming that they want a cut of the bigger market teams' local revenue in the spirit of parity when in reality, they just want a form of corporate welfare so they can line their pockets.

When Snyder floated the idea of giving up 10% of his local revenue with the stipulation that it be used on player salary alone, the small markets balked at the idea.

Hmmm. These owners don't care about field a winning team or paying players salaries. They want to keep the money for themselves. Arizona never spent much. With Denny Green- they are starting to spend some. Same with Cincy and Marvin Lewis.

All these teams that are in public owned facilites- they can sell naming rights. Alot of public finianced facilites have done this. You can structure a deal so that the city and the team benefits. If the Colts- can find a company to spend money for naming rights in a publicly financed stadium; the Browns, Bills, Bengals, Cardinals surely can.

Frankly, the nfl could survive if say the smallest markets were eliminated.

A reduced NFL could look like this:

AFC East:

Dolphins

Jets

Pats

Kill the Ravens and move the Colts back to Baltimore.

Afc Central:

Steelers

Browns

Panthers

Falcons

Afc West:

Broncos

Chiefs

Raiders- Let AL move back to L.A.

Texans

Nfc East:

Cowboys

Giants

Eagles

Redskins

Nfc Central:

Bears

Packers

Lions

Bucs

Nfc West:

Seahawks

Rams

49ers

Titans

That's reduces each league by one division. Eliminate the Saints, Bills, Bengals, Jaguars, Cardinals, Vikings, Chargers, Ravens- move the Colts back to Baltimore and fold the Ravens. That would take care of most of the weakest franchises.

A league like this would do fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes but heres the thing to remember. The succesful NFL teams, generating tons of revenue have owners who generate. No matter how much the smaller ones take from them unfairly, because they are good businessmen, they will find another way to make it. Make no mistake of that.

And as for small market teams. Its a load of BS. There are more than enough football fans in this country for 32 teams. The NE patriots were at teh VERY BOTTOM of the league before Kraft bought the team. Bottom of the league in revenues that is. Now? 3rd biggest franchise in the NFL. He took the team from the bottom to the top.

Small "market" owners are only that because they make poor business decisions and sit on their handouts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep Im pissed, the redskins had 12 years of losing seasons but us fans stuck by them the whole time. If other fans was as loyal to there team as we are, they wouldnt be in the position they are today.

That proves that many other teams only have band wagon jumpers and do NOT deserve any parts of our income or any other teams that there fans are there win or lose.

I do Not feel sorry for the poor teams because they wouldnt be poor if there fans were die hards like Redskin fans, so screw the cap and screw the bandwagon wanna be fans!!!

Redskin fans are the most faithful in all of sports!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes but heres the thing to remember. The succesful NFL teams, generating tons of revenue have owners who generate. No matter how much the smaller ones take from them unfairly, because they are good businessmen, they will find another way to make it. Make no mistake of that.

And that will be the crux of the matter. Some of the big $$ teams are going to be forced to cough up money no matter how much they object, but 5 or 10 years down the road when JJ and DS have figured out new revenue streams, these same teams will cry for more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Radio commentators are saying that these new price hikes are related to the new collective-bargain agreement (CBA) and its associated revenue sharing.

The Redskins have apparently made the decision to support the new CBA, which means they will be giving up millions in local revenue to other teams in smaller markets. Thus, these price hikes are intended in part to help offset that lost revenue, allowing Snyder to support the new CBA without hurting our ability to sign players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a bunch of losers. The average income in this country (let alone the median) is something like 35k. Did you ever wonder where all the poor people live? I got news for you - not in DC.

Go to Buffalo, or Cincy, or Cleveland, and that's where you'll find all the 20k-ers. And then tell me their owners are lazy bums for not maximizing their income like Danny-boy and his parking lots.

Simple fact: their income is maximized right now. Local industry is barely keeping afloat. They are not particularly interested in naming rights.

Dude, Cleveland is one of the higher revenue teams in this league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been a fan of the redskins since the George Allen days and it makes me angry to see the way the low revenue teams are milking the high revenue teams for all they can get away with!!! If you would do research on the low revenue teams you would find that it is not location that brings in so little revenue it is the owners who just dont know how or are un willing to tap the revenues that are there for the taking so WHY should the teams that work their ass off have to give away their hard earned money to the rest of the owners who blatantly dont spend the money but pocket it for them selves

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heres another example... two of the lower revenue teams? Ny Giants and NY jets. Now some would argue they are sharing revenues. But there still is no excuse for the small market share both have. Both have very little debt, and have the 8 million population NY city to draw from. Yet they are only millions above the very bottom of the league franchises. 8 million people who earn a very large median houshold income(38k). Consider that DC is only 550k people who earn that much, and that NY state is one of the biggest states in the US, there has been some mismanagement there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly :cheers:

Are you going to blame other owners that have had teams for so long and are not as rich as some of the newer owners just because now you need to be almost a billionare to own a team???

If your revenue is 150 million and you have to give 60% of that to the players, that is a lot of money, and not much left for running the team and stadium. Synder and Jones make about $250 million and 60% of that is not as bad, plus all the other stuff they have on the side.

For the teams that city owns the stadium it is harder for them to generate any revenue from the stadium since it all goes back to the city.

You can not push out the small markets, know matter how much you do not like their situation.

The thing you have to remember is snyder is still paying off the skins He borrowed like 400 million or something like that to buy them. Plus when he bought the redskins he also bought the stadium. the redskins were only valued as a team then at about 350 -400 million the stadium with it was about 300 million. The browns were bought for 500 million and Houston 600 million IIRC.

I read an article a few years ago and when snyder was in the negotations to purchase the redskins that there was a big profit margin unrealized by the Cooke family that snyder jumped on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone realized why certain teams can make more then others, it is not just marketing the main thing is stadiums.

9 out of the top 10 revenue generating teams all have new stadiums, and the other is building one now.

This is why teams generate more income. What hurts some teams is when the cities own the stadium, then all the revenue doesn't just go to them.

Everyone laughs about Arizona, but have you ever been there, the stadium is a dump, and when the build the new one you might be shocked how fast they climb that list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why wouldn't you think that social welfare would become popular for lame NFL owners too?! Bill Bidwill wants just as big a piece of cake without opening his wallet!

Bidwill reminds me of Milton from "Office Space" : "I was told I would get a piece of cake ..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone realized why certain teams can make more then others, it is not just marketing the main thing is stadiums.

9 out of the top 10 revenue generating teams all have new stadiums, and the other is building one now.

This is why teams generate more income. What hurts some teams is when the cities own the stadium, then all the revenue doesn't just go to them.

Everyone laughs about Arizona, but have you ever been there, the stadium is a dump, and when the build the new one you might be shocked how fast they climb that list.

Arizona's new stadium opens this fall right? Even with a new stadium- Cards won't do much unless Denny Green finally turns it around this year. Year 3- turn it around or goodbye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate the idea that prevailing view seems to be that there should be no advantage to being a big market team.

I happen to believe, that if there is going to be a split in local revenues, teams that contribute more of those local revenues should have some sort of advantage. I don't know what that avantage should be but there should be some sort of advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate the idea that prevailing view seems to be that there should be no advantage to being a big market team.

I happen to believe, that if there is going to be a split in local revenues, teams that contribute more of those local revenues should have some sort of advantage. I don't know what that avantage should be but there should be some sort of advantage.

There is, they still can pay the bigger signing bonus, it all depends what the number of the cash over cap is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is, they still can pay the bigger signing bonus, it all depends what the number of the cash over cap is.

If they start to regulate "cash over cap" dollars then that's another advantage taken away from high-revenue teams.

High revenue teams are expected to give and give and get nothing in return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears to me and we will know more later that the small market teams will be getting what they want.

For all the talk of big market teams holding things up, it appears that small market teams where whining like babies. Saying they won't approve a deal unless their needs are taken care off.

They are getting their way with cash over cap. They probably get their way in some form of new revenue sharing.

I know this, the nfl better say that until a small market maximizes is revenue potential that can't get any revenue sharing beyond what they do now. So, Paul Brown Jr- sell the naming rights to that stadium. Same thing for Ralph Wilson. Okay get the city/county to sell the naming rights and split that with the team. Think they don't own their stadiums.

Also, raise the minimum cap level. Every year we see teams that never spend to the cap and some of these very same teams want extra revenue or to limit what spending teams can spend. Well, if you are going to do that; then you better be raising the minimum spending to say 80% the cap. I think that's something higher than what we have now.

So anyone getting angry over the fact it appears the small market teams maybe getting the better part of any new C.B.A.?

Mad? Hardly. The small market teams ought to be getting their way. The NFL was built on the premis that all teams should be competitive. The Wellington Mara's of the league saw to it that the league came 1st.

In 61' He and Pete Rozelle decided that even though New York had the most to lose, that the teams should pool their television revenues and share equally, in the best interests of the small market clubs.

In 66' he agreed to a merger of the NFL/AFL even though again, he had the most to lose because he'd have to share his monolopy of NY fans with the upstart Jets.

The league must come 1st.

That said, I agree with a cap increase but I would like it coupled with an increase in roster size. I don't care to simply raise the cap to bail-out teams with questionable capologists, I'd like to see teams continue to be competitive when they lose players to injury.

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...